On 06/25/2010 11:21 PM, James Todd wrote:
for your approach, what is the reconciliation process for when the
user-provided-responder differs from that as specified in the
request header? and again the question, why require the user to specify a
responder when the request handshake includes all
the necessary data to make such a decision? perhaps this is a detail but to
me it is a key design consideration.
i do believe the proper solution is to internalize the responder delegate
based on inspection of the request handshake.
This is a good question, but to me it seems separate from Netty integration.
With HTTP one can run many Avro services on a single port by hosting
different services at different URLs. With a raw socket-based approach
one could use a port per protocol. But that can be awkward, since it
requires more configuration and potentially more holes in firewalls.
Dispatching on the protocol name in the handshake to different
responders might thus be a useful feature. But, again, this can be
implemented separately from permitting folks to use a Netty-based
transport. A Server, rather than containing a single Responder, might
contain a ResponderSet or somesuch.
Doug
