Suggestion on Channel Classes

["이희승 (Trustin Lee)"]

On 07/15/2009 03:29 PM, 이희승 (Trustin Lee) wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> On 07/07/2009 08:14 AM, Michael McGrady wrote:
>> The Netty Channel interface throughout the package uses the following
>> design pattern.
>>
>> The sub-interfaces are seemingly wholly unnecessary and over-complicate
>> understanding the design. This is seemingly true of all of the following
>> interface extensions.
>>
>> Unless there is good reason to the contrary that I am not aware of, I
>> would deprecate these extensions and then get rid of them.  I would not
>> be surprised if I have missed some reason why these are necessary.
> 
> I'm not sure I understood what you suggested correctly, but are you
> suggesting to remove the channel interfaces that extends one or more
> other channel interfaces?  If so, I agree.  For example,
> LocalServerChannel should be replaced by the combination of LocalChannel
> and ServerChannel.  The same change could be applied to
> ServerSocketChannel and XnioServerChannel.  Let me know if this is what
> you think (or not.)

Or, did you mean XYZServerChannel doesn't need to extend XYZChannel?
(e.g. LocalServerChannel does not extend LocalChannel)  It actually
sounds more reasonable.

Trustin