Some evidence of what I have been claiming as a differentiator between
mina and grizzly which is grizzly's emphasis is on performance &
scalability where mina's emphasis is on a general purpose framework.
I make this claim based the comment, "grizzly just provide low level api
for developer, proactor do it too, only mina give higher level api for
developer".
I'd claim Grizzly is being proactive to not produce an API or set of
APIs that might inhibit performance and scalability. If we do, I'd
expect that we'd deprecate them in a later release should one manage to
creep in.
charlie ...
Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:
> Interesting....
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Number of class, Maybe and How?
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:39:14 +0800
> From: ÏòÇØÏÍ <fyaoxy_at_gmail.com>
> Reply-To: dev_at_mina.apache.org
> To: dev_at_mina.apache.org
>
> Sirs,
> I tried mina with FTP client. and planing a FTP server, maybe rush into
> apache ftpserver by using mina.
> There is an interesting comparation between mina with grizzly, proactor, and
> aio.
>
> with mina 1.1, I do a ftp client, need mina supported class java file about
> 83.
> with grizzly, about 25.
> with proactor about 20.
> inner class not included, I just count java file.
> I don't know the number if mean something.and if it is, but How to do in
> future?
>
> Besides coconut (not competed), grizzly just provide low level api for
> developer,
> proactor do it too, only mina give higher level api for developer.
> I like this point. and In my personal view, I feel it is possible that
> removing some operation from session context (in mina aka iosession).
>
> Hope hear you. And Sooooooooooorry for my pool english writing.
>
> Regards,
>
>
--
Charlie Hunt
Java Performance Engineer
630.285.7708 x47708 (Internal)
<http://java.sun.com/docs/performance/>