Hi Rupert, > I am intending to apply all your patches and give them a quick look over > before recomending that they are committed (I'm not a committer but can ask > someone here at JPMC to do it). Right now, I've been a bit busy writing > performance tests to have a chance to do this. Hopefully, I will get a > chance to do so towards the end of this week.
No problem, it's not like I'm in a rush or anything :) I appreciate your willingness to help, and definitely let me know if there's anything else I can do to help (or make your life easier with the patches!). > As for the intention of the code... As I understand it, it was mostly > written by Steve Shaw who was my predecessor here at JPMC. I am totally new > to the code, so having to figure it out as I go. There's not many (any?) > comments in the code, and nothing in the wiki. Not very helpfull, but that > seems to be the state of play. Yep, that's why I'd want to begin any work on that with a good set of unit tests to support the refactoring. I'll probably spend some time looking at the original Java code to see what I can figure out as well, but since I know parts of it are based (or depend, I'm not sure) on MINA, I guess things are bound to be different. Which brings me to the question of whether basing the .NET client buffering on how the original Java code in the first place might indeed be the best option. That's why I wanted to get some info about the original buffer code design so that I could understand it better! Tomas Restrepo [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/
