It's fine with me. I also have a slight preference for the 33 ThreadPool, but it's not a big deal either way.
If we're going to move the socket handling into o.a.c.http11, what about importing o.a.t.util.net? It should mean that Tomcat 4.x should be able to get PureTLS support fairly cheaply. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 3:25 PM Subject: Coyote: replacing Processor with ProtocolHandler > Hi, > > In order to merge the connector-related code in Coyote and jk, I need > a different abstraction. Processor takes InputStream/OutputStream params, > and assumes the connector will listen on the port, etc. > > The problem is that it doesn't map to things like JNI and is hard to > abstract things like UnixSocket. > > I would like to replace it with a similar interface, ProtocolHandler, > which is stateless ( Servlet-like ) and will just have a init()/destroy() > method, letting the protocol deal with the threads. > > It's easy to implement it in http11 - this is duplicated in the 33/40 > versions. I would prefer to use the 33 thread pool from util, but > I'm ok with the code used in 40 ( or I can implement both, with an > option ). > > Also, I would like to reduce/eliminate the use of Socket and the other > dependencies between Coyote and the protocol impl ( it is supposed > to abstract it, but there are few details.. ) > > Remy, Bill - is it ok ? > > Costin > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
