You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to ftpserver-dev@incubator.apache.org by Atul Gohad <ag...@gmail.com> on 2007/10/30 15:10:54 UTC
Question regarding Upward mobility for Mina and SLF4j with Apache FTP Server.
Hi Niklas / all ,
Just had a question. Will the Apache FTP Server get affected in case we are
using the upward versions of SLF4J v1.4.3 and Mina framework.
I am not so sure on the coupling between Mina and Apache, and the impact
that it might have when we upgrade to higher versions of mina, rather that
the currently bundled 1.0.2? Understand that the SLF4J upward mobility
should be fine, as that is a light weight component, however, let me know if
my understanding is wrong.
Thanks ,
Atul Gohad.
Re: Question regarding Upward mobility for Mina and SLF4j with Apache FTP Server.
Posted by Trustin Lee <tr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Niklas,
I am sorry for the late response first of all...
The only difference between 1.0.x and 1.1.x is Java 5 support, and
that's all. All minor updates must be backward-compatible with its
previous minor updates.
HTH,
Trustin
On Nov 8, 2007 7:59 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
> Atul Gohad wrote:
> > Hello Niklas,
> >
> > When you say minor changes might be required to use Mina 1.1.2, are they
> > w.r.t. FTP Server functionality, or w.r.t. maven / build scripts so as to
> > package the upward versions? If they are w.r.t FTP Server functionality,
> > then any specific areas that need to be aware of ?
>
> I would recommend you to look into the change history of MINA 1.1. As I
> haven't look into this myself I'm afraid I can't give you any more
> detailed pointers. Possible Trustin (MINA developer) can you help you
> further, I've CCd him on this mail.
>
> /niklas
>
>
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > Atul Gohad.
> >
> >
> > On 11/2/07, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Atul Gohad wrote:
> >>> Hello Niklas / All,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks on the information. Have further 2 points to be clarified:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. Understanding is that all of the Mina 1.1.* versions are for Java
> >>> 5.0compatibility, so then is Mina
> >>> 1.0.7 equivalent of Mina 1.1.4?
> >> No, I believe that there has been additional improvements to the 1.1
> >> branch. As we try to maintain a Java 1.4 compatibility, we'll remain on
> >> the 1.0 branch for now.
> >>
> >>> 2. Is it safe to assume that Mina 1.1.2 will be supported?
> >> I haven't tried so I won't know for sure. I'm guessing (very) minor
> >> updates on our end might be needed.
> >>
> >>> Additionally what part of Apache FTP Server funtionality needs to be
> >>> regressed so as to confirm compatibility with the latest of Mina? Any
> >>> information on specific test cases to be executed / areas to look into
> >> will
> >>> be helpful.
> >> I usually try to run our JUnit tests, they should give a fair workaround
> >> for the server. Then, different FTP clients work in different ways,
> >> which causes different behaviors on the server. But, over time we try to
> >> improve our tests by adding these type of cases as well.
> >>
> >> /niklas
> >>
> >>> Thanks and Regards,
> >>> Atul Gohad.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 31, 2007 2:22 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Atul Gohad wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Niklas / all ,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just had a question. Will the Apache FTP Server get affected in case
> >> we
> >>>> are
> >>>>> using the upward versions of SLF4J v1.4.3 and Mina framework.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not so sure on the coupling between Mina and Apache, and the
> >> impact
> >>>>> that it might have when we upgrade to higher versions of mina, rather
> >>>> that
> >>>>> the currently bundled 1.0.2? Understand that the SLF4J upward mobility
> >>>>> should be fine, as that is a light weight component, however, let me
> >>>> know if
> >>>>> my understanding is wrong.
> >>>> Both MINA and SLF4J have been very stable when it comes to upgrades. I
> >>>> just updated our versions to SLF4J 1.4.3 and MINA 1.0.7 and ran our
> >>>> tests succesfully. The change has been checked into SVN.
> >>>>
> >>>> /niklas
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
--
PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
Re: Question regarding Upward mobility for Mina and SLF4j with Apache
FTP Server.
Posted by Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com>.
Atul Gohad wrote:
> Hello Niklas,
>
> When you say minor changes might be required to use Mina 1.1.2, are they
> w.r.t. FTP Server functionality, or w.r.t. maven / build scripts so as to
> package the upward versions? If they are w.r.t FTP Server functionality,
> then any specific areas that need to be aware of ?
I would recommend you to look into the change history of MINA 1.1. As I
haven't look into this myself I'm afraid I can't give you any more
detailed pointers. Possible Trustin (MINA developer) can you help you
further, I've CCd him on this mail.
/niklas
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Atul Gohad.
>
>
> On 11/2/07, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Atul Gohad wrote:
>>> Hello Niklas / All,
>>>
>>> Thanks on the information. Have further 2 points to be clarified:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Understanding is that all of the Mina 1.1.* versions are for Java
>>> 5.0compatibility, so then is Mina
>>> 1.0.7 equivalent of Mina 1.1.4?
>> No, I believe that there has been additional improvements to the 1.1
>> branch. As we try to maintain a Java 1.4 compatibility, we'll remain on
>> the 1.0 branch for now.
>>
>>> 2. Is it safe to assume that Mina 1.1.2 will be supported?
>> I haven't tried so I won't know for sure. I'm guessing (very) minor
>> updates on our end might be needed.
>>
>>> Additionally what part of Apache FTP Server funtionality needs to be
>>> regressed so as to confirm compatibility with the latest of Mina? Any
>>> information on specific test cases to be executed / areas to look into
>> will
>>> be helpful.
>> I usually try to run our JUnit tests, they should give a fair workaround
>> for the server. Then, different FTP clients work in different ways,
>> which causes different behaviors on the server. But, over time we try to
>> improve our tests by adding these type of cases as well.
>>
>> /niklas
>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> Atul Gohad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2007 2:22 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atul Gohad wrote:
>>>>> Hi Niklas / all ,
>>>>>
>>>>> Just had a question. Will the Apache FTP Server get affected in case
>> we
>>>> are
>>>>> using the upward versions of SLF4J v1.4.3 and Mina framework.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not so sure on the coupling between Mina and Apache, and the
>> impact
>>>>> that it might have when we upgrade to higher versions of mina, rather
>>>> that
>>>>> the currently bundled 1.0.2? Understand that the SLF4J upward mobility
>>>>> should be fine, as that is a light weight component, however, let me
>>>> know if
>>>>> my understanding is wrong.
>>>> Both MINA and SLF4J have been very stable when it comes to upgrades. I
>>>> just updated our versions to SLF4J 1.4.3 and MINA 1.0.7 and ran our
>>>> tests succesfully. The change has been checked into SVN.
>>>>
>>>> /niklas
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: Question regarding Upward mobility for Mina and SLF4j with Apache FTP Server.
Posted by Atul Gohad <ag...@gmail.com>.
Hello Niklas,
When you say minor changes might be required to use Mina 1.1.2, are they
w.r.t. FTP Server functionality, or w.r.t. maven / build scripts so as to
package the upward versions? If they are w.r.t FTP Server functionality,
then any specific areas that need to be aware of ?
Thanks and Regards,
Atul Gohad.
On 11/2/07, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Atul Gohad wrote:
> > Hello Niklas / All,
> >
> > Thanks on the information. Have further 2 points to be clarified:
> >
> >
> > 1. Understanding is that all of the Mina 1.1.* versions are for Java
> > 5.0compatibility, so then is Mina
> > 1.0.7 equivalent of Mina 1.1.4?
>
> No, I believe that there has been additional improvements to the 1.1
> branch. As we try to maintain a Java 1.4 compatibility, we'll remain on
> the 1.0 branch for now.
>
> > 2. Is it safe to assume that Mina 1.1.2 will be supported?
>
> I haven't tried so I won't know for sure. I'm guessing (very) minor
> updates on our end might be needed.
>
> > Additionally what part of Apache FTP Server funtionality needs to be
> > regressed so as to confirm compatibility with the latest of Mina? Any
> > information on specific test cases to be executed / areas to look into
> will
> > be helpful.
>
> I usually try to run our JUnit tests, they should give a fair workaround
> for the server. Then, different FTP clients work in different ways,
> which causes different behaviors on the server. But, over time we try to
> improve our tests by adding these type of cases as well.
>
> /niklas
>
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > Atul Gohad.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 31, 2007 2:22 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Atul Gohad wrote:
> >>> Hi Niklas / all ,
> >>>
> >>> Just had a question. Will the Apache FTP Server get affected in case
> we
> >> are
> >>> using the upward versions of SLF4J v1.4.3 and Mina framework.
> >>>
> >>> I am not so sure on the coupling between Mina and Apache, and the
> impact
> >>> that it might have when we upgrade to higher versions of mina, rather
> >> that
> >>> the currently bundled 1.0.2? Understand that the SLF4J upward mobility
> >>> should be fine, as that is a light weight component, however, let me
> >> know if
> >>> my understanding is wrong.
> >> Both MINA and SLF4J have been very stable when it comes to upgrades. I
> >> just updated our versions to SLF4J 1.4.3 and MINA 1.0.7 and ran our
> >> tests succesfully. The change has been checked into SVN.
> >>
> >> /niklas
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: Question regarding Upward mobility for Mina and SLF4j with Apache
FTP Server.
Posted by Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com>.
Hi,
Atul Gohad wrote:
> Hello Niklas / All,
>
> Thanks on the information. Have further 2 points to be clarified:
>
>
> 1. Understanding is that all of the Mina 1.1.* versions are for Java
> 5.0compatibility, so then is Mina
> 1.0.7 equivalent of Mina 1.1.4?
No, I believe that there has been additional improvements to the 1.1
branch. As we try to maintain a Java 1.4 compatibility, we'll remain on
the 1.0 branch for now.
> 2. Is it safe to assume that Mina 1.1.2 will be supported?
I haven't tried so I won't know for sure. I'm guessing (very) minor
updates on our end might be needed.
> Additionally what part of Apache FTP Server funtionality needs to be
> regressed so as to confirm compatibility with the latest of Mina? Any
> information on specific test cases to be executed / areas to look into will
> be helpful.
I usually try to run our JUnit tests, they should give a fair workaround
for the server. Then, different FTP clients work in different ways,
which causes different behaviors on the server. But, over time we try to
improve our tests by adding these type of cases as well.
/niklas
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Atul Gohad.
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2007 2:22 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
>
>> Atul Gohad wrote:
>>> Hi Niklas / all ,
>>>
>>> Just had a question. Will the Apache FTP Server get affected in case we
>> are
>>> using the upward versions of SLF4J v1.4.3 and Mina framework.
>>>
>>> I am not so sure on the coupling between Mina and Apache, and the impact
>>> that it might have when we upgrade to higher versions of mina, rather
>> that
>>> the currently bundled 1.0.2? Understand that the SLF4J upward mobility
>>> should be fine, as that is a light weight component, however, let me
>> know if
>>> my understanding is wrong.
>> Both MINA and SLF4J have been very stable when it comes to upgrades. I
>> just updated our versions to SLF4J 1.4.3 and MINA 1.0.7 and ran our
>> tests succesfully. The change has been checked into SVN.
>>
>> /niklas
>>
>>
>
Re: Question regarding Upward mobility for Mina and SLF4j with Apache FTP Server.
Posted by Atul Gohad <ag...@gmail.com>.
Hello Niklas / All,
Thanks on the information. Have further 2 points to be clarified:
1. Understanding is that all of the Mina 1.1.* versions are for Java
5.0compatibility, so then is Mina
1.0.7 equivalent of Mina 1.1.4?
2. Is it safe to assume that Mina 1.1.2 will be supported?
Additionally what part of Apache FTP Server funtionality needs to be
regressed so as to confirm compatibility with the latest of Mina? Any
information on specific test cases to be executed / areas to look into will
be helpful.
Thanks and Regards,
Atul Gohad.
On Oct 31, 2007 2:22 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
> Atul Gohad wrote:
> > Hi Niklas / all ,
> >
> > Just had a question. Will the Apache FTP Server get affected in case we
> are
> > using the upward versions of SLF4J v1.4.3 and Mina framework.
> >
> > I am not so sure on the coupling between Mina and Apache, and the impact
> > that it might have when we upgrade to higher versions of mina, rather
> that
> > the currently bundled 1.0.2? Understand that the SLF4J upward mobility
> > should be fine, as that is a light weight component, however, let me
> know if
> > my understanding is wrong.
>
> Both MINA and SLF4J have been very stable when it comes to upgrades. I
> just updated our versions to SLF4J 1.4.3 and MINA 1.0.7 and ran our
> tests succesfully. The change has been checked into SVN.
>
> /niklas
>
>
Re: Test using Mina
Posted by Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com>.
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 6:59 AM, JhuneRGeronimo <jh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I had run this simple code below for 2 hours and look what happen... Is
> there anybody explain and help me why a simple test like this will hit the
> memory.
You probably meant to send this to users@mina.apache.org. This list is
only for FtpServer related questions.
/niklas
Test using Mina
Posted by JhuneRGeronimo <jh...@yahoo.com>.
Hi,
I had run this simple code below for 2 hours and look what happen... Is
there anybody explain and help me why a simple test like this will hit the
memory.
my Server :
public class Server2 {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
ByteBuffer.setUseDirectBuffers(false);
ByteBuffer.setAllocator(new SimpleByteBufferAllocator());
int PORT = 8999;
IoAcceptor acceptor = new SocketAcceptor(2,
Executors.newCachedThreadPool());
IoServiceConfig cfg = acceptor.getDefaultConfig();
TextLineCodecFactory factory = new
TextLineCodecFactory(Charset.forName("UTF-8"));
factory.setDecoderMaxLineLength(2048);
cfg.getFilterChain().addLast("codec", new ProtocolCodecFilter(factory));
acceptor.bind(new InetSocketAddress(PORT), new ioHandler(), cfg);
}
}
my Handler
public class ioHandler extends IoHandlerAdapter {
public void exceptionCaught(IoSession session, Throwable t) throws
Exception {
t.printStackTrace();
session.close();
}
public void messageReceived(IoSession session, Object msg) throws Exception
{
String str = msg.toString();
if( str.trim().equalsIgnoreCase("quit") ) {
session.close();
return;
}
Date date = new Date();
Thread.sleep(840);
for(int i = 0 ;i<1000000; i++ ){
Thread.sleep(100);
session.write("\n
<action>01</action><action>01</action><action>01</action><action>01</action><action>01</action><action>01</action><action>01</action><action>01</action><action>01</action><action>01</action><action>01</action><action>01</action>
" + i + "\n" );
}
WriteFuture sw = session.write( date.toString() );
System.out.println("Message written...");
}
public void sessionCreated(IoSession session) throws Exception {
System.out.println("Session created...");
if( session.getTransportType() == TransportType.SOCKET )
((SocketSessionConfig) session.getConfig() ).setReceiveBufferSize( 2048
);
session.setIdleTime( IdleStatus.BOTH_IDLE, 10 );
}
}
result for 2 HOURS...
http://www.nabble.com/file/p19248923/mina.jpg
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Question-regarding-Upward-mobility-for-Mina-and-SLF4j-with-Apache-FTP-Server.-tp13490641p19248923.html
Sent from the FTPServer - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Question regarding Upward mobility for Mina and SLF4j with Apache
FTP Server.
Posted by Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com>.
Atul Gohad wrote:
> Hi Niklas / all ,
>
> Just had a question. Will the Apache FTP Server get affected in case we are
> using the upward versions of SLF4J v1.4.3 and Mina framework.
>
> I am not so sure on the coupling between Mina and Apache, and the impact
> that it might have when we upgrade to higher versions of mina, rather that
> the currently bundled 1.0.2? Understand that the SLF4J upward mobility
> should be fine, as that is a light weight component, however, let me know if
> my understanding is wrong.
Both MINA and SLF4J have been very stable when it comes to upgrades. I
just updated our versions to SLF4J 1.4.3 and MINA 1.0.7 and ran our
tests succesfully. The change has been checked into SVN.
/niklas