You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mina.apache.org by Gaston Dombiak <ga...@jivesoftware.com> on 2007/01/01 04:00:04 UTC

RE: Some questions (slf4j , how to reduce thread count, accessing session IP address)

When using the ExecutorFilter (with default settings) you will have 16
core threads in the thread pool. Your options are 1) pass an Executor
when building/setting the ExecutorFilter, 2) configure the thread pool
that the filter is using or 3) use your own thread model.

I would recommend customizing the SEDA architecture (i.e. number of
queues, and processing threads) based on your expected load.

PS: I'm using branch 1.1 and logic may be different in other branches.

Regards,

  -- Gato

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Webb [mailto:elihusmails@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:46 AM
To: dev@mina.apache.org
Subject: Re: Some questions (slf4j , how to reduce thread count,
accessing session IP address)

As far as #1 goes, http://www.slf4j.org/download.html.
The rest, I can look in to, but am sure some smarter person on this list
will beat me to the answer.


On 12/29/06, Mehmet D. AKIN <md...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, I have three questions (Using mina 1.1 pre release snapshot)
>
> 1. I failed to find a single slf4j jar file in sl4j1.1 distribution to
> satisfy mina's dependencies. I had to include both slf4j-api and
> slf4j-nop jars to run tests. Is there a single slf4j jar to run mina?
>
> 2. As far as I see, MINA automatically creates 16 threads as more than
> one client tries to access to server. Is there a way to reduce this
> thread count.. to like 1 or 2 ? I could do this in an old version but
> API seems to be changed.
>
> 3. I want to access the connected clients IP address from session
> info. again I could do this, but not anymore :) What I want to do is
> to allow "only local connections" so I will check the address on
> connection request. There is a blacklist filter for such purposes but,
> I guess a whitelist filter approach is needed in this situation (allow
> this, deny all others).
>
> I browsed the documentations but either I couldnt see the answers or
> API's are changed since the documentation is written.
>
> regards
>
> Mehmet
>



-- 
..Cheers
Mark