Hi,
I just committed it, it's compiling, a bit working, but it's not really
for production usage (or any usage actually :D).Trustin is going to
refactor AbstractIoProcessor
The APR goal is to be portable on Unix and non Unix OSes, so there is
no Unix Domain socket :(
Perhaps a great idea whould
sounds great!
I will keep my eye on this project for future updates and will revisit this
soon.
--
..Cheers
Mark
On 9/19/07, Julien Vermillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I just committed it, it's compiling, a bit working, but it's not really
for production usage (or any usage actually
that the
selector read/writes are somewhat fair..
R/Lee
-Original Message-
From: Julien Vermillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, Sep 14, 2007 11:57 am
Subject: Re: slightly OT: how to write an NIO provider
To: Reply-[EMAIL PROTECTED]: dev@mina.apache.org
On loopback you won't drop UDP
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:02:25 -0400
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am looking to write a provider that performs NIO on a Unix Domain
Socket. This would be used to communicate between JVMs on the same
box and do it in a way that is faster than TCP.
Hi Mark,
My APR based connector is
Thanks for the information. If you would like any help, please let me know
as I have been prototyping all different variations of UnixDomainSockets and
Java.
--
..Cheers
Mark
On 9/14/07, Julien Vermillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:02:25 -0400
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oh, and if you have any resources that support the notion that Unix Domain
Sockets are no faster than TCP over loopback I would love to see them. I
would hate to spend much more time on this project only to find out that TCP
would work just as well.
Thanks again!
--
..Cheers
Mark
On 9/14/07,
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:18:50 -0400
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Domain
Sockets are no faster than TCP over loopback I would love to see
them. I would hate to spend much more time on this project only to
find out that TCP would work just as well.
Thanks again!
--
Unix domain sockets
I think you are confusing User Datagram Protocol with Unix Domain Sockets.
UDP are the datagram packets, UDS communicates via a virtual socket
represented by a file on POSIX compliant operating systems.
--
..Cheers
Mark
On 9/14/07, Julien Vermillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep
On loopback you won't drop UDP packets, that's the trick ;)
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:49:14 -0400
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think even I am getting confused. I have a group of processes on a
box that will always be on the same box, so I was looking for a fast
way for them to communicate.
I think even I am getting confused. I have a group of processes on a box
that will always be on the same box, so I was looking for a fast way for
them to communicate. My options are:
TCP over loopback
Unix Domain Sockets
Pipes
Pipes will not fulfill my needs, so I was looking into Unix Domain
Interesting. Never thought about that.
Thanks for the info.
--
..Cheers
Mark
On 9/14/07, Julien Vermillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On loopback you won't drop UDP packets, that's the trick ;)
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:49:14 -0400
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think even I am getting
On 9/11/07, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am interested in writing an NIO provider and wondered if anyone here has
experience doing this.
It would be great if we can provide an alternative NIO provider for
better performance, aside from Julien's APR transport effort. I'd
love to see what is
What does that mean? Mina's NIO performance is not good enough?
On 9/13/07, Trustin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/11/07, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am interested in writing an NIO provider and wondered if anyone here
has
experience doing this.
It would be great if we can provide
Hi Mark,
Mark wrote:
I am looking to write a provider that performs NIO on a Unix Domain Socket.
This would be used to communicate between JVMs on the same box and do it in
a way that is faster than TCP.
The GlassFish project has one if you want to take a look at:
14 matches
Mail list logo
