On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Julien Vermillard <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> we discussed off line with Julien about Idle session support. Here is a sum >> up of what we talked about, and we may have to make some choice. >> >> First of all, it's absolutely mandatory to be able to manage idle sessions, >> in order to kill them, for instance. So we must offer a mechanism by which >> the application developer can handle this. >> >> In MINA 2, if a session is idle for more than a given amount of time >> (configurable), either on read, write or both, then an event is fired on the >> chain, up to the handler. >> >> This is done in the selector loop. The problem with this approach is that >> it's extremely expensive, and most certainly the worst possible solution to >> deal with idle sessions, when it comes to manage hundred or thousands of >> idle sessions. Another issue is that because it's really awfully costly, the >> quantum between two detection is one second. Last, not least, this one >> second os not very precise for a session, as if the session was created >> between two checks, then the delay between the last check and the session >> creation adds up. In other words, we can wait up to one more second to >> detect that a session is idle. >> >> We have some better ideas : >> - first, not all the sessions can be controlled. We need a list of session >> registered for an idle check
+1 it would reduce what we check for this condition >> - second, and more important, we must have a dedicated thread make sense, something like an scheduledexecutor >> - last, not least, this mechanism should be optional. Ie, when the session >> is created, it's up to the application to tell that the session must be >> checked for idleness, by registering it into the idleController. +1 inline with 1 >> >> We should also allow a more fine grained control, like 100ms, and even, it >> could be made configurable. making it configurable would be great. Let the application decide its tolerance for idle sessions >> >> thoughts ? >> > > The current mechanism is pretty wrong, and cannot resolve idle time > lesser than 1sec. > > We should do something not mandatory and efficient, I'm thinking about > a time-period HashMap of list of session to check (we should update it > for each session I/O events), and a timer checking every X ms the list > of session in the map for this time index. > Well I 'll try to clear my mind a propose a design. > > Julien Hmm... do we need a Map for this, as we will always be iterating all the entries, so if we could do this in one go. Just thinking out loud, may be using Map could be a better solution :) cheers ashish
