On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm wondering if any async framework offers enough to make an > external dependency worthwhile. What benefit do they provide, at > the low level that the datanode would operate? I'm not sure. I don't have enough experience to say whether or which. Reading -- not implementing -- what I learned about an nio implementation is that its easy to make a mess; in particular an implementation that works but that is dog slow or resource expensive. I got the sense that using one of the frameworks would help avoid the ready traps. Then again, I was reading the framework's literature and did not make a discount for self-promotion. Regards dependency, if its working the dependency will be overlooked (IMO). St.Ack > > I've used Netty before, but it's LGPL. Grizzly and MINA are two > more or less equivalent options that I am aware of. MINA is ASF. > That's probably the least objectionable external dependency, but > then I go back to the question of how much time savings would it > offer? There's a learning curve for me in any direction, picking > apart the DN, piecing it back together. There's no argument > against a new dependency if I just go with plain NIO. > > Is anyone aware of some compelling benefit to Grizzly or MINA or > some serious pitfall with just using plain NIO? I'm a C++ guy > still learning the Java landscape here... > > - Andy > > > From: stack > > > > Did you see in the hadoop issue where Raghu talks of grizzly > > mayhaps been better suited because it has more accomodating > > community and its written more to the datanode level? > > > > Would suggest keeping Raghu in the loop. Perhaps by > > posting intermediary patches up against the hadoop issue. > > > > I can help pre-review patches and with testing. > > > > >
