[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - A few more comments on new transport

A few more comments 1. Client class should be interface - so it can be mocked out for clebert and others. 2. Correlation id should be counter? 3. Connector registry should be interface. 4. Packet dispatcher should be interface and have unit test. 5. Logging filter currently hardcoded to trace. 6. MINAService should be interface? 7. Why do we need PacketDispatcher.clent and .server? apart from invm case only one of these would be used? so instantianting unnecessary objects 8. Why not combine the codec class and the packet class - not sure why not separate classes 9. why register different codecs for each messsage type? why not just register one and lookup based on the message type? 10. We need to guarantee order per session - need to use the MINA OrderedThreadPoolExecutor? (otherwise messages might arrive out of order). 11. As mentioned before, need to test the actual contents of the byte buffer is what is expected in packettest - currently not being done. 12. MINA dependent classes should be in integration sub directory 13. core.remoting directory should only contain interfaces - currently contains implementations too View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4116081#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...