Serving multi-Responder on one port is a good idea. - harry
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Doug Cutting <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
