Le 3/22/13 10:51 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit : > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Le 22 mars 2013 21:26, "Jeff MAURY" <[email protected]> a écrit : >>> Sorry, I missed my point. >>> My intent is not to remove the session concept from the MINA UDP API but >>> rather to say that trying to implement the concept of a virtual session >>> like Emmanuel proposes seems to me that this will put some kind of >> overhead >>> in the MINA processing (and maybe memory leaks as well) for a use case >> that >>> I don't see being relevant except for 1% >> What we call a 'session' here is just a container with a state. If the >> application does not want to do anything with it, no pb. >> > What I try to explain is that you are implementing a session for a use case > that I think is very specific.
Yes, but this is the way the MINA framework is designed : we have session in the IoHandler... Now, I wonder if we really need to manage Session instances when we have incoming UDP messages : wouldn't it be better to propagate a static Session instance that only contain the scoketAddress from the caller, taken from a pool of session instances ? I guess that it's what you have in mind... > >> Although it's for Mina a way to gather stats (nv msg sent, etc) and to >> offer convenient methods (events). Nothing more. >> > In my opinion, you are mixing two different aspects. > The statistics should be available globally for UDP, ie on the port level. Right. We can probably re-think the way it currently works. Thanks for the heads up. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
