On 2/22/13 1:25 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 21/02/2013 23:17, Danny Coward wrote:
>
>> My own take on this is that:
>>
>> I think it does work :)
>> It makes the restriction on the # MessageHandlers harder to explain :(
>> It could be useful in some circumstances, but not many :|
>>
>> What are other folks opinions ?
>
> There would need to be very clear rules on how the Async / Basic
> decision is to be taken otherwise different containers will have
> different behaviour for the same input and that can't be good.
>
> I suspect that exactly how a message is presented will depend on the
> underlying IO implementation used by the WebSocket container. That
> could make creating a set of rules on selecting Async / Basic that all
> WebSocket implementations could work with tricky.
>
>> Can anyone think of a compelling usecase to justify the increase in
>> complexity to explain this ?
>
> No. If folks want to handle the cases differently then they can handle
> last == true for the first part of a message as a special case.
>
>> Or should we just wait until the next
>> version when we can look at some more formal way to allow multiple
>> message handlers.
>
> I think that would be much better.
>
> In short, I see a lot of down sides and no upside at this point.
Yes in thinking about how to define the (relaxed) restriction, I agree
with you Mark. So we'll leave it as it is.
- Danny
>
>
> Mark
>
--
<http://www.oracle.com> *Danny Coward *
Java EE
Oracle Corporation