Re: More control over Bayeux protocol – feature request

[Luís M. Costa]

Hi,

 About the name conventions, I just gave my contribute to discussion in
another thread.


Danny Dai wrote:
> 
>   3. BayeuxConnection is over wight, it should be split into three
> 
> layers(low-level, session-level, per-request)
> 
>     The three layers model is cool and useful. It also sounds like the
> 
> servlet API. I think the low-level and seesion level shoud be combined
> 
> together, they are exactly like current BayeuxConnection. Because
> 
> these actions (including close, queue control, handshake and others)
> 
> are based on the same object. The "object" here dosen't only refer to
> 
> the BayeuxConnection. It means to the Bayeux connection between a pair
> 
> of client and server.
> 
>     To the per-request level, Bayeux protocol is kind of different. In
> 
> one Bayeux request, it may hold more one Bayeux request, which I think
> 
> it's the hardest part to provide such a per-request level. Now, there
> 
> is a rough way(while loop to get from upstream) to do that. Do you
> 
> have more specify suggestions?
> 

  I'm not familiar with servlet API model, but the three layer scheme is
very common. I can agree that low-level connection and session could be
together. I suggested differently because sessions can out live low-level
connections.
  I was thinking in per-request level in a brother sense. I'm ware that
multiple requests can be sent simultaneously, but those, would constitute a
single request. But I also believe that  each of the received request, once
decoded, can be processed individually.

Just a thought,
    Luís M. Costa
-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/More-control-over-Bayeux-protocol-feature-request-tp3473901p3573213.html
Sent from the Netty Developer Group mailing list archive at Nabble.com.