On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:16 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote:
Hi,
I implemented some really simple chain for MINA 3 based on a list of
chain processed by a filter chain.
The implementation is very simple, sounded like a good idea :
I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make things
pretty complicated and adds another dimension to groking the behavior of your
service. I'm not sure that it's necessary.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Alan
On 8/19/11 1:55 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:16 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote:
Hi,
I implemented some really simple chain for MINA 3 based on a list of
chain processed by a filter chain.
The implementation is very simple, sounded like a good idea :
On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make things
pretty complicated and adds another dimension to groking the behavior of your
service. I'm not sure that it's necessary.
Definitively a bad idea.
What we need is an
On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make things
pretty complicated and adds another dimension to groking the behavior of
your service. I'm not sure that it's
On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 8/19/11 1:55 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:16 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote:
Hi,
I implemented some really simple chain for MINA 3 based on a list of
chain processed by a filter chain.
The implementation is very
Hi!
Besides the points you mentioned, there are some other flaws:
1) How do you handle post-message-forwarding logic?
2) How do you handle filters that transparently push messages to the underlying
filters (e.g. keep alive)?
So the filters should decide about what to do, the chain about the
I half implemented the controller idea, it's looking like working,
I'll finish that during the weekend or next week and commit it for
review.
Julien
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Steve Ulrich steve.ulr...@proemion.com wrote:
Hi!
Besides the points you mentioned, there are some other flaws:
Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] wrote:
So, what is the scenario that we're trying to support? I imagine
appending headers to binary data would be one. In this case is an
Array of ByteBuffers really needed? Why not just send down one
ByteBuffer for the header and another for
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Steve Ulrich steve.ulr...@proemion.com wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] wrote:
So, what is the scenario that we're trying to support? I imagine
appending headers to binary data would be one. In this case is an
Array of ByteBuffers really
Ok I committed the modification, for passing a chain controller to the
filter for delegating the call to next filter.
First I did it only for read write chaining because the other events
(created,open,closed,idle) are fine like they are. They don't need to
block an event or send it multiple time
Why do we pass the current position? We also seem to pass it twice in the
method and the controller.
Regards,
Alan
On Aug 19, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Julien Vermillard wrote:
Ok I committed the modification, for passing a chain controller to the
filter for delegating the call to next filter.
On 8/19/11 2:26 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make things
pretty complicated and adds another dimension to groking the behavior of
On 8/19/11 2:29 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 8/19/11 1:55 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:16 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote:
Hi,
I implemented some really simple chain for MINA 3 based on a list of
chain processed by a
14 matches
Mail list logo
