2005/10/18, Paolo Perrucci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I understand that encoding/decoding can be optional but I think that in
some cases they can help to simplify the code.
For example, in the last days I developed a tcp server (using
ProtocolHandler) that read ReadMessage objects and write WriteMessage
objects.
Hence I wrote a TcpProtocolEncoder that trasform WriteMessage to
ByteBuffer and a TcpProtocolDecoder that trasform ByteBuffer to ReadMessage.
Now I would like to add the vm pipe transport type support to the same
server but because I can't use encoding/decoding, MINA call
ProtocolHandler.messageReceived() with a message of type WriteMessage.
So when receiving messages from a vm pipe client the messageReceived()
should first trasform the WriteMessage in a ReadMessage.
Hence the messageReceived() code depends on the session trasport type.
My question is: is there a design flaw in my project or I missed
something in the use of vm pipe trasport type?
You don't need to use any codec to transform WriteMessage into ReadMessage. It's just a bean-to-bean conversion. I don't see any encoder or decoder involving in this process.
Trustin
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
