> Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:[email protected]] wrote: > > After a second (third ?) thought, sounds like trying to have only one > queue per IoProcessor is not really a good idea.
I like the idea of letting the IoProcessor handle the queue(s). The queue could be seen as an IoProcessor internal thing, the session shouldn't know of (even if there's one per session). Maybe there's an option of storing the queue per IoSession in a way, that the IoSession doesn't need to care about it (IoSession-Attributes?). There is some refactoring needed, since the queue is accessed by different classes (FilterChain, Acceptor, Session, Processor), which looks dangerous and obscure to me. > It brings little, and cost a lot. Let's get back to one session/one > writing queue. ok > Thanks for the good feedback, Steve ! I'm glad to help. I would like to participate more, but currently don't have time left for it. regards Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROEMION GmbH Steve Ulrich IT Development (IT/DEV) Donaustrasse 14 D-36043 Fulda, Germany Phone +49 (0) 661 9490-601 Fax +49 (0) 661 9490-333 http://www.proemion.com/ mailto:[email protected] Geschäftsführer: Dipl. Ing. Robert Michaelides Amtsgericht-Registergericht-Fulda: 5 HRB 1867 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- E-mail and any attachments may be confidential. If you have received this E-mail and you are not a named addressee, please inform the sender immediately by E-mail and then delete this E-mail from your system. If you are not a named addressee, you may not use, disclose, distribute, copy or print this E-mail. Addressees should scan this E-mail and any attachments for viruses. No representation or warranty is made as to the absence of viruses in this E-mail or any of its attachments. AKTUELLES http://www.rmcan.de/ NEWS http://www.rmcan.com/
