Yep...agreed...how is this?
Index: core/src/main/java/org/apache/mina/common/AbstractIoSession.java
===================================================================
--- core/src/main/java/org/apache/mina/common/AbstractIoSession.java
(revision 607135)
+++ core/src/main/java/org/apache/mina/common/AbstractIoSession.java
(working copy)
@@ -496,6 +496,14 @@
return scheduledWriteMessages.get();
}
+ protected void setScheduledWriteBytes(long byteCount){
+ scheduledWriteBytes.set(byteCount);
+ }
+
+ protected void setScheduledWriteMessages(int messages) {
+ scheduledWriteMessages.set(messages);
+ }
+
protected final void increaseReadBytes(long increment, long
currentTime) {
if (increment <= 0) {
return;
Trustin Lee wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Do we need to remove the final modifier if we are going to provide
> setters? And assuming you are using DummySession as a mock object,
> I'd suggest making AbstractIoSession.setScheduled...(...) protected
> and make them public in DummySession. WDYT?
>
> Cheers,
> Trustin
>
> On Dec 28, 2007 8:19 AM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Trustin (and others)...so how about these changes and additions to the
>> AbstractIoSession? This will allow the scheduledBytes/messages to be
>> overriden, and also allow someone to set them.
>>
>> Index: core/src/main/java/org/apache/mina/common/AbstractIoSession.java
>> ===================================================================
>> --- core/src/main/java/org/apache/mina/common/AbstractIoSession.java
>> (revision 607135)
>> +++ core/src/main/java/org/apache/mina/common/AbstractIoSession.java
>> (working copy)
>> @@ -488,14 +488,22 @@
>> lastThroughputCalculationTime = currentTime;
>> }
>>
>> - public final long getScheduledWriteBytes() {
>> + public long getScheduledWriteBytes() {
>> return scheduledWriteBytes.get();
>> }
>>
>> - public final int getScheduledWriteMessages() {
>> + public int getScheduledWriteMessages() {
>> return scheduledWriteMessages.get();
>> }
>>
>> + public void setScheduledWriteBytes(long byteCount){
>> + scheduledWriteBytes.set(byteCount);
>> + }
>> +
>> + public void setScheduledWriteMessages(int messages) {
>> + scheduledWriteMessages.set(messages);
>> + }
>> +
>> protected final void increaseReadBytes(long increment, long
>> currentTime) {
>> if (increment <= 0) {
>> return;
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> Trustin Lee wrote:
>>> Hi Jeff and Emmanuel,
>>>
>>> You can add some hook for IoSession.write() by inserting an IoFilter,
>>> so I am not sure about removing the final modifier from write().
>>>
>>> Overriding getScheduledMessages and getScheduledBytes makes sense
>>> though because they will always be 0 because messageSent event will be
>>> always fired immediately.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Trustin
>>>
>>> On Dec 27, 2007 10:21 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>> What do *you* think? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Beside the assert, which was a side effect of my quick glance at the
>>>> method you want to override, I think that dooming the final is sane.
>>>>
>>>> If someone needs to protect this method, then the best solution would be
>>>> to define a super class with final methods calling the AbstractIoSession
>>>> non final methods.
>>>>
>>>> Another solution (puke....) would be to remove the
>>>> public/protected/private qualifier, and to add a MockIoSession in the
>>>> same package. Not very elegant, but does the job too...
>>>>
>>>> There are always tradeoff when you want to thoroughly unit-test some
>>>> code. When it comes to an API, it seems impossible to avoid those
>>>> tradeoff, IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> Any other opinion ? Trustin ? Julien ?
>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was hoping to see if we could discuss some of the "final" qualifiers
>>>>>>> on some of the methods in the AbstractIOSession. The reason I ask is it
>>>>>>> would be cool to be able to override some of the methods such as:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> public WriteFuture write(Object message)
>>>>>>> public final int getScheduledWriteMessages()
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be able to write MockObjects for unit tests of code. Any thoughts on
>>>>>>> making these protected instead of final?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> makes sense to me... Or we may have a AbstractMockIoSession implementing
>>>>>> the IoSession interface, for unit tests ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While looking at the abstract class, I found some methods with this kind
>>>>>> of code :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public final WriteFuture write(Object message, SocketAddress
>>>>>> remoteAddress) {
>>>>>> if (message == null) {
>>>>>> throw new NullPointerException("message");
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't be a perfect case for an assert ? Like :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public final WriteFuture write(Object message, SocketAddress
>>>>>> remoteAddress) {
>>>>>> assert message != null : "Null messages are not allowed";
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wdyt ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> cordialement, regards,
>>>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>>>> www.iktek.com
>>>> directory.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
