Stream corruption with multiple producers -> SOLVED

["Trustin Lee (이희승)"]

What about simply deprecating Bootstrap.get/setPipeline() and suggest to
use setPipelineFactory(), considering almost any non-trivial
applications use it?

Trustin

Shay Banon wrote:
> I think that the all concept of the documentation annotation and the
> fact that you can actually change the pipeline on the bootstrap without
> a pipeline factory is confusing.
> 
> I understand (the very rare, I think) case where you would want to have
> a pipeline that is shared by all channels, but I think that currently
> its not very simple to understand that... .
> 
> For example, something that might be simpler is removing (deprecating)
> the pipeline on the bootstrap completely (you must provide a pipeline
> factory), and maybe have an annotation or a SharedPipelineFactory
> interface that you can implement to have a pipeline shared across channels.
> 
> The above is not the best solution, I need to think about it a bit more.
> Any solution should be something where the API documents itself, without
> needing to read the docs... .
> 
> Shay
> 
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Neves <luis.neves at gmail.com
> <mailto:luis.neves at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM, "Trustin Lee (이희승)"
>     <trustin at gmail.com <mailto:trustin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > Hi Luis and Shay,
>     >
>     > Did you find the current documentation confusing about setting up the
>     > pipeline?
> 
> 
>     Not really... In my eagerness to quickly have something working I've
>     only glanced trough the documentation... I've read the paragraph:
> 
>     "However, as your application gets more and more complex, you will
>     almost always end up with writing a ChannelPipelineFactory, which
>     yields much more flexibility to the pipeline configuration."
> 
>     And I thought "more flexible but basically the same"... of course I've
>     failed to read the above paragraphs:
> 
>     "It might look somewhat complicated at the first glance, and it is
>     true that we don't need to introduce TimeClientPipelineFactory  in
>     this particular case because TimeClient creates only one connection"
> 
>     and
> 
>     "There's another place that needs a fix. Do you remember that we added
>     a TimeClientHandler instance to the default ChannelPipeline of the
>     ClientBootstrap? It means one same TimeClientHandler instance is going
>     to handle multiple Channels and consequently the data will be
>     corrupted. To create a new TimeClientHandler  instance per Channel, we
>     have to implement a ChannelPipelineFactory"
> 
> 
>     So I guess the only problem of the documentation is that it isn't
>     idiot proof.
> 
>     Regards.
> 
>     --
>     Luis Neves
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     netty-users mailing list
>     netty-users at lists.jboss.org <mailto:netty-users at lists.jboss.org>
>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netty-users mailing list
> netty-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/netty-users/attachments/20091229/74a7f481/attachment.bin