[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > One of the goals of the new native connector is to provide better > interfaces and support for different transports. > > What I would like is to clarify ( and simplify ) the relation > between the 3 objects that are involved in the transport: > - worker > - endpoint > - channel > in order to have less duplicated code and more flexibility. > > The proposal is: > - move service() from endpoint_t to worker_t. > - move get_endpoint() from worker_t and done() from endpoint_t to > channel_t. > - move processCallbacks() from workerEnv_t to channel_t. > > What we acomplish by that: > - channel will be the only object dealing with message transport > ( regardless of the message format ). JNI which uses a different > protocol will be a normal channel like any other. > > - worker will only implement service() ( the actual action ), using > delegation to channel or a different mechanism. A worker can > implement a different protocol ( like warp ), or do anything else - > it still have the same flexibility, just that the code will be much > simpler since it'll delegate instead of duplicate. > > - endpoint is specific and managed by channel, and represents a > (single) connection between java and C. > > Worker remains the 'central' object, controlling how the request is > forwarded. We just move the overhead of managing specific connections > to channel, which is handling the transport. > > What I want is to make the C code implement the > same abstractions with the java side and to get JNI to use the > same transport abstraction. > > What do you think ? Henri, JFC, Kevin - I hope for an quick answer :-)
+1 I have to find more time for it ;-)) > > Costin > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
