Hi Peter, On 9/20/06, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/20/06, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2006, at 10:16 PM, Trustin Lee wrote: > > Greg and I actually considered creating an interface that abstracts > > DatagramAcceptor/ConnectorConfig, say > > ConnectionlessIoServiceConfig. The > > name was extraordinarilly long, so we just put that property to > > IoServiceConfig and documented that the property will only affect > > connectionless transports. You are right that it is placed in a > > long place, > > but putting it into DatagramServiceConfig is also not really a good > > option. > > Should we just use ConnectionlessIoServiceConfig, or other better > > name? > > What's wrong with putting it in a DatagramServiceConfig, seeing as > its datagram-only at the moment? Hmm, I see. Then let's create DatagramServiceConfig and put it there, and create the super interface when more transports comes into play.
I did it by myself. Now you won't see a sessionRecycler property from IoServiceConfig. Thanks for the wise advice, Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP key fingerprints: * E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41 4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E * B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4 455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6
