Hi Trustin, 2008/4/4, "이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Christian, > > Christian Migowski wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > 2008/4/4, "이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: > > > > > For WRITE_IDLE, I don't know if it is relevant. > > > If so, then I would suggest to make two kind of filter, one for > > READ_IDLE > > > and another one for WRITER_IDLE, so the user can choose one or the > > other > > > or both. > > > > I'm not sure what we can do with WRITER_IDLE for sending keep-alive > > messages. Could you give me some scenarios? > > > > > > I might be missing an important point, but isn't the WRITE_IDLE status > > much more relevant for sendinvg keep-alive messages? I mean, "normally" > > servers do not send keepalive messages but clients do. In particular, > > they send them when the application logic which is utilising MINA has no > > "data" messages to send but wants to hold the connection, because > > "normally" servers close "inactive" connections after a certain amount > > of time. > > I usually have been writing servers which send keep alive messages to > detect closed sockets. :) > > > Sorry if i misunderstood something completely. > > You are right. Let me add get/setIdleStatus() methods to > KeepAliveFilter so a user can choose which event to listen to. WDYT? sounds reasonable for me. Also, I personally would not disable forwarding of the sessionIdle events completely but give the user a possibility to enable it (optional ie. default off) as he may want to also use it (for counting or closing the connection after a certain amount of idle-ling ...) greetings, christian!
