On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Ashish<[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> You can't use two codec filters in the chain, due to the way the data >>> are passed from one filter to another one (we use IoBuffer for that). >> >> Can IoFilter be used in these situations? > No, not with the current API? This is one of the major problem we have > with the use of IoBuffer - beside other problems - and this is the > reason we want to replace it with a kind of Stream API, where the > Stream will be able to carry Objects instead of IoBuffers. This would > make it simple then the chain two codecs, one accepting byte[] and > transforming it to a type T, the second one accepting T objects and > transforming them to a type U, etc. The first codec filter will use a > Stream<byte[]> and produce a Stream<T>, the second codec will accept a > Stream<T> and produce a Stream<U>. > > Of course, this has to be elaborated, but I guess you get the idea.
Got it. All the way I thought I could build a chain this way :-( > >> Can a filter chain look something like this >> >> IoFilter A (Logging Filter) -- Protocol Decoder B - IoFilter C > > AFAIR, from the top of my head ( I don't have access to the code right > now), no. -- thanks ashish
