Hi Hunt,
I must admit I not capture all of your means on the last paragraph.
And I must say sooooooorry for my pool english again.
Performance, hmm, In my eyes, there are many kind of performance.
I do a joke, it's a performance. You do speeching, it's a performance too.
Java with a vm do execution, it's a performance tooooo.
100m dashing, it's one person performance.
tug-of-war, it's people's performance.
From above, we can get a view:
Performance not just for only performance, but for happiness, and for world,
and for romance.
I have checked out J12007 grizzly report in which there is a performance
comparasion between
grizzly and mina. both 2 point grizzly higher than mina, but not more
higher.
And from comprarasion between grizzly and c style server, grizzly can do
great performance.
So, I think that high level should not a bad thing. We can just take a talk
on Java.
In my heart, Java more higher than cX. but why grizzly can do a higher than
cX-Servers.
It's a evidence. that it is. So why not grizzly do higher level.
From this point extend to Java language, Java can do more higher.
There is a base in it, just like china say, more people picking more woods,
more flaming more blaze.
It do a metaphor, grizzly do more higher, more people do more participating,
grizzly do more great. And Java do this way now. is it? or isn't it?
Ok, soooorry for my pool english again.
BTW, Jacrand, I'm waint for you check out grizzly I about write selector
code comments from me.
You remember it? :)
Ooops, if not, right, please jump to
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/jfarcand/archive/2006/05/tricks_and_tips_1.html
Wish someone do speaking china.:)
Happy to hear you.
Regards,
2007/6/16, charlie hunt <charlie.hunt_at_sun.com>:
>
> 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: 向秦贤 <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/>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>
>
--
向秦贤