I just added a detailed bug. I believe it's only relevant for connectors,
but I haven't verified that.
-Adam
On 7/8/07, Adam Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's just that IoSession.getLocalAddress doesn't actually return the local
address. Rather, it returns the remote address! Looking at
DatagramSessionImpl getLocalAddress doesn't return the local address
Key: DIRMINA-395
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-395
Project: MINA
Issue Type: Bug
It's just that IoSession.getLocalAddress doesn't actually return the local
address. Rather, it returns the remote address! Looking at the comment in
the code, though, it appears this is intentional, so I didn't consider
entering a bug. I was mostly trying to figure out how to actually get the
l
Mark Webb-4 wrote:
>
> I really do not think the ByteBuffer javadoc for the trunk is all that
> bad.
> Could you please list some specific areas that would necessitate a
> rewrite?
>
Walking through the API methos in alphabetic order:
1) You should use allocateDirect() instead of allocate(int
I really do not think the ByteBuffer javadoc for the trunk is all that bad.
Could you please list some specific areas that would necessitate a rewrite?
Thank you.
On 7/7/07, cowwoc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I noticed you are removing pooling and acquire()/release() of ByteBuffer
in
2.0
On 7/7/07, Adam Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I noticed this chunk of code in the constructor for DatagramSessionImpl
after realizing getLocalAddress didn't return the local address at all:
// We didn't set the localhost by calling getLocalSocketAddress() to
avoid
// the case tha
Hi,
On 7/8/07, cowwoc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I noticed you are removing pooling and acquire()/release() of ByteBuffer in
2.0. Can you please consider refactoring ByteBuffer to be a helper class
that fits on top of or alongside NIO's ByteBuffer? It seems to me that most
of the methods i
On Jul 7, 2007, at 4:25 PM, cowwoc wrote:
I noticed you are removing pooling and acquire()/release() of
ByteBuffer in
2.0. Can you please consider refactoring ByteBuffer to be a helper
class
that fits on top of or alongside NIO's ByteBuffer?
...
Also, I don't mean to offend anyone, but the Ja
And at the risk of offending even more people: *please* watch this video!
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/effective-api-design
Apache Mina could use a lesson or two from it :)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Refactor-ByteBuffer-for-2.0--tf4042211.html#a11483257
Sent fr
Hi,
I noticed you are removing pooling and acquire()/release() of ByteBuffer in
2.0. Can you please consider refactoring ByteBuffer to be a helper class
that fits on top of or alongside NIO's ByteBuffer? It seems to me that most
of the methods in your version of ByteBuffer are just convenience me
10 matches
Mail list logo
