gustav trede wrote:
>
>
> 2010/1/13 Oleksiy Stashok <Oleksiy.Stashok_at_sun.com
> <mailto:Oleksiy.Stashok_at_sun.com>>
>
> Hi,
>
> on topic:
>
> I'm not sure this should be fixed by adding support for
> mulitple interceptors (on a ProcessorTask, e.g.). Most of the
> changes so far involve altering deprecated classes which is a
> little contradictory. In 2.x, the planned approach would be
> to use the port-unification/ProtocolFilter approach and I
> think we should do that for 1.9.x as well. It's a much, much
> clean approach and could be done with relatively little change
> to existing code. It'd just be another PF in the chain that
> would halt any further execution of the chain. So it'd be the
> same basic logic as the current suggested approach without all
> the ugly hackery going on to retrofit this update in a
> non-breaking fashion. As it is now, it's looking more and
> more like a breaking API change on the 1.9.x tree and that's
> something we're striving to avoid. Thoughts?
>
> You're right, this issue is basically addressed just to 1.9.x
> branch. The extension will help us to support multiple
> protocols/frameworks on top of HTTP. Now, Grizzly HTTP server is
> an atomic block, so there is no other way to register some custom
> HTTP protocol implementation inside it than implementing own HTTP
> Interceptor.
>
> In 2.0 (may be not first release) we will split HTTP/Web container
> implementation into separate Filters: HTTPFilter and Web container
> Filter. HTTP Filter will be just responsible for parsing HTTP
> request so developers will be able to insert any custom protocol
> Filter next to HTTP Filter in order to implement custom HTTP based
> protocol.
>
>
> off topic:
> I will just write my thoughts and won't make any other comment on
> that.
>
> I will never work with 2.0. I disagree with its design.
>
> It's your right. So far I heard no concrete proposal or comment
> from you on 2.0 design.
>
> Its of interest that JFA dont like it either, wonder why he
> left anyhow ?
>
> That's so absurd and not truthful comment, that I have nothing to say.
>
>
> Is it absurd ? . its more like that you dont like that information and
> hence tries to dirty talk it without any factual information whatsoever.
> Its available in my gmail chat logs with JFA. i could give you my
> gmail login so you can check for yourself.
Why dont' we just ask JFA himself and have him post his response her?
Grizzly has always been a very open community and I see no reason why
any criticism (if it exists) wouldn't be accepted here.
charlie ...
>
> --
> regards
> gustav trede
>
>