Deprecating ChannelPipelineCoverage?

[Trustin Lee (이희승)]

Before making the final decision ...

1) (@Shared and @Unshared) or (@SharedHandler vs @UnsharedHandler)?
2) Would it be a better idea to just get rid of
@ChannelPipelineCoverage without replacement?

-- Trustin Lee, http://gleamynode.net/

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Christian Migowski <chrismfwrd at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/11/9 Trustin Lee (이희승) <trustin at gmail.com>:
>> Hey Iain,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Iain McGinniss <iainmcgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> How about @SharedHandler and @UnsharedHandler? @Shared describes
>>> Mike's usage, where he has a handler used by multiple pipelines but
>>> within which he has implemented the appropriate logic to avoid
>>> threading issues.
>>
>> I love this idea.
>
> I also think this is a good suggestion, better then Stateful and Stateless.
>
> regards,
> christian!
>
>>
>>> A side question: does netty actually check these annotations at
>>> runtime, to make sure an unshared handler instance is not used by
>>> multiple pipelines?
>>
>> Currently only for documentation purpose, but I'd like to add some
>> runtime check.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>> Iain
>>>
>>> On 9 Nov 2009, at 00:12, Trustin Lee (이희승) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good point.  Then, do you have some suggestion for a better name than
>>>> ChannelPipelineCoverage, or do you think it's just fine?  I think
>>>> there might be a better name that makes it easier to understand.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> -- Trustin Lee, http://gleamynode.net/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Mike McGrady
>>>> <mmcgrady at topiatechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Trustin,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that the present annotations are more explicit.  The present
>>>>> annotations say what is actually happening.  The stateful and
>>>>> stateless annotations would not actually fit what is happening with
>>>>> my
>>>>> code.  I use stateful code with "all" and this is not a problem.  If
>>>>> the annotation were changed I would have "stateless" as the
>>>>> annotation
>>>>> but have a stateful handler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 8, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Trustin Lee (이희승) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think about replacing ChannelPipelineCoverage with more
>>>>>> explicit annotations such as @Stateful and @Stateless?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ChannelPipelineCoverage has a confusing name (at least for a
>>>>>> beginner), and its value cannot be validated on compile time because
>>>>>> it's string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Trustin Lee, http://gleamynode.net/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> netty-dev mailing list
>>>>>> netty-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike McGrady
>>>>> Principal Investigator AF081-028 AFRL SBIR
>>>>> Senior Engineer
>>>>> Topia Technology, Inc.
>>>>> 1.253.720.3365
>>>>> mmcgrady at topiatechnology.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netty-dev mailing list
>>>>> netty-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netty-dev mailing list
>>>> netty-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netty-dev mailing list
>>> netty-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-dev
>>>
>>
>> -- Trustin Lee, http://gleamynode.net/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netty-dev mailing list
>> netty-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netty-dev mailing list
> netty-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-dev
>