From yberg@example.com Tue Dec 01 10:46:35 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 67579 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2009 10:46:35 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Dec 2009 10:46:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 31873 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2009 10:46:34 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 31785 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2009 10:46:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 31775 invoked by uid 99); 1 Dec 2009 10:46:32 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:46:32 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:46:22 +0000 Received: from saunalahti-vams (vs3-12.mail.saunalahti.fi [83.161.120.155]) by emh06-2.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with SMTP id A1919C7DA3; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:46:01 +0200 (EET) Received: from emh07.mail.saunalahti.fi ([83.161.120.155]) by vs3-12.mail.saunalahti.fi ([83.161.120.155]) with SMTP (gateway) id A02E997C6F1; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:46:01 +0200 Received: from anubis.fi.indagon.com (gw.indagon.com [83.161.120.155]) by emh07.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1AF1C6382; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:45:59 +0200 (EET) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (anubis [83.161.120.155]) by anubis.fi.indagon.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB1AjvIX030530; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:45:58 +0200 Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:46:37 +0200 From: Eero Nevalainen <yberg@example.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "yberg@example.com" <yberg@example.com>, "yberg@example.com" <yberg@example.com> Subject: Re: about the implementation of SimpleIoProcessorPool References: <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: VAMS X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >>> The test is just a safety belt. It does not harm... We should >>> probably refactor this code to be a bit moe accurate though ... >> >> assert? > > Yuck :/ > > So C-ished.. > > better have better code ! Wait... what? I thought the whole point of assertions is to provide these "no harm safety belt checks", with the side effect that they can be disabled if there are concerns of efficiency. -- Eero Nevalainen From yberg@example.com Tue Dec 01 13:11:35 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 14418 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2009 13:11:35 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Dec 2009 13:11:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 31540 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2009 13:11:34 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 31455 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2009 13:11:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 31445 invoked by uid 99); 1 Dec 2009 13:11:33 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:11:33 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yberg@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-pw0-f53.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:11:31 +0000 Received: by pwj11 with SMTP id 11so6883130pwj.32 for <yberg@example.com>; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:11:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=kzSZxVjYii/hNEnkss8S3uv4FuF46TvZQ5GKkB2wCeg=; b=bd8rtJAHJu+262ZHWa+HrzUULdQIEL8+ISBx6EyHYamIWSeIsehdbb2Xyfqo4vq+mf qC8rr5S0t0F3VBA9uEiWwRXVN19BOlUXhQCzT52Pla2eLImtDmov9ukXQ7B0qKY8vraM A9a4cyeDXVT6S6g0LrHEsitVp8zUjDo+L76OY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=w7ZA7CvY4JbrHkNp8p8w2NIoA82eLd9ra4Zi9z76149yhZuDDIod7G6uBgQwZsAusB yRSnhaXVknUeeKoLA6emAPcD+ntAyvtLJ8SwCUI5fUY8AL4pfey1ODDlIHua2QmSwsol u9xkHIgu9r57UV2QNc7It2YRL8FKRS9TVRLGk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id 8mr576572wfh.64.1259673071086; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:11:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> References: <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> From: Peng Lee <yberg@example.com> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:10:51 +0800 Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Subject: Re: about the implementation of SimpleIoProcessorPool To: yberg@example.com Cc: "yberg@example.com" <yberg@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 2009/12/1 Eero Nevalainen <yberg@example.com>: > Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >>>> The test is just a safety belt. It does not harm... We should >>>> probably refactor this code to be a bit moe accurate though ... >>> >>> assert? >> >> Yuck :/ >> >> So C-ished.. >> >> better have better code ! > > Wait... what? > > I thought the whole point of assertions is to provide these "no harm > safety belt checks", with the side effect that they can be disabled if > there are concerns of efficiency. I don't think it wil be . > > -- > Eero Nevalainen > > > From yberg@example.com Tue Dec 01 15:31:39 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 73485 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2009 15:31:39 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Dec 2009 15:31:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 68513 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2009 15:31:38 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 68449 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2009 15:31:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 68439 invoked by uid 99); 1 Dec 2009 15:31:38 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:31:38 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: softfail (athena.apache.org: transitioning domain of yberg@example.com does not designate 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-px0-f204.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:31:36 +0000 Received: by pxi42 with SMTP id 42so3764819pxi.5 for <yberg@example.com>; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:31:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id u30mr11226998wak.119.1259681473917; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:31:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?83.161.120.155? (dagmar.corp.linkedin.com [83.161.120.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm608887pxi.1.283.161.120.155.31.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:31:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <yberg@example.com> From: "Alan D. Cabrera" <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: about the implementation of SimpleIoProcessorPool Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 07:31:09 -0800 References: <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:46 AM, Eero Nevalainen wrote: > Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >>>> The test is just a safety belt. It does not harm... We should >>>> probably refactor this code to be a bit moe accurate though ... >>> >>> assert? >> >> Yuck :/ >> >> So C-ished.. >> >> better have better code ! > > Wait... what? > > I thought the whole point of assertions is to provide these "no harm > safety belt checks", with the side effect that they can be disabled if > there are concerns of efficiency. I personally like asserts for that reason and for the way it declares the original developer's assumptions. It's quite helpful when a new developer starts reading the code base. Finally, it does make code testing more productive in an open source environment where there are many cooks in the kitchen. Regards, Alan From yberg@example.com Tue Dec 01 15:49:49 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 79439 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2009 15:49:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Dec 2009 15:49:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 555 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2009 15:49:48 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 481 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2009 15:49:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 471 invoked by uid 99); 1 Dec 2009 15:49:48 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:49:48 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:49:45 +0000 Received: (qmail 79126 invoked by uid 99); 1 Dec 2009 15:49:25 -0000 Received: from localhost.apache.org (HELO mail-fx0-f221.google.com) (83.161.120.155) (smtp-auth username elecharny, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:49:25 +0000 Received: by fxm21 with SMTP id 21so4695576fxm.21 for <yberg@example.com>; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:49:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: yberg@example.com Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id s15mr943599fau.77.1259682563172; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:49:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> References: <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:49:23 +0100 Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Subject: Re: about the implementation of SimpleIoProcessorPool From: Emmanuel Lecharny <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0023545bdb80b529b60479acb3a0 --0023545bdb80b529b60479acb3a0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would say that if some committer uses asserts in MINA, I will respect that. I tried to use asserts in Java in the past, and I found it almost useless and confusing, so I just dropped it. It's quite strange because I was a C-assert freak back in the 90ies... In any case, asserts does not replace a decent piece of code :) On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <yberg@example.com>wrote= : > > On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:46 AM, Eero Nevalainen wrote: > > Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >> >>> The test is just a safety belt. It does not harm... We should >>>>> probably refactor this code to be a bit moe accurate though ... >>>>> >>>> >>>> assert? >>>> >>> >>> Yuck :/ >>> >>> So C-ished.. >>> >>> better have better code ! >>> >> >> Wait... what? >> >> I thought the whole point of assertions is to provide these "no harm >> safety belt checks", with the side effect that they can be disabled if >> there are concerns of efficiency. >> > > I personally like asserts for that reason and for the way it declares the > original developer's assumptions. It's quite helpful when a new develope= r > starts reading the code base. Finally, it does make code testing more > productive in an open source environment where there are many cooks in th= e > kitchen. > > > > Regards, > Alan > > --=20 Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel L=E9charny www.iktek.com --0023545bdb80b529b60479acb3a0-- From yberg@example.com Thu Dec 03 10:38:46 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 31366 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2009 10:38:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Dec 2009 10:38:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 39000 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2009 10:38:45 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 38919 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2009 10:38:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 38793 invoked by uid 99); 3 Dec 2009 10:38:44 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:38:44 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:38:41 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48B9234C045 for <yberg@example.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 02:38:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <636482897.1259836700659.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:38:20 +0000 (UTC) From: "Dave Roberts (JIRA)" <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Subject: [jira] Updated: (FTPSERVER-344) Allow configuration of FileObserver and StatisticsObserver In-Reply-To: <946272978.1259589560623.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FTPSERVER-344?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Dave Roberts updated FTPSERVER-344: ----------------------------------- Attachment: ftpStatistics2.patch I don't like my first patch. Getting the FtpStatistics to then set the Observers seems wrong, and counter intuitive to the rest of the setup for the server. I think the Observers should be set as part of the ConnectionConfigFactory, which also makes it easier for the Spring configuration. What we then need is a means of setting the Observers within the FtpStatistics. This should probably be done within DefaultFtpServer.start(). I thought about moving the Observers out of (Default)FtpStatistics but that simply means more changes are required within the command implementations such as STOR and RETR. So perhaps start() would simply get the Observers from the ConnectionConfig and set them in the FtpStatistics. Comments? > Allow configuration of FileObserver and StatisticsObserver > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: FTPSERVER-344 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FTPSERVER-344 > Project: FtpServer > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Dave Roberts > Attachments: ftpStatistics.patch, ftpStatistics2.patch > > > Setting this Observers currently involves a lot of casting and use of "internal" classes and interfaces. > These need to be exposed to the public interfaces. > The simplest idea would seem to be to push the methods up to the FtpStatistics interface. However, these are only exposed through the Ftplet which are runtime objects, so a better mechanism is required. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. From yberg@example.com Thu Dec 03 11:08:37 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 42234 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2009 11:08:37 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Dec 2009 11:08:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 80494 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2009 11:08:36 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 80412 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2009 11:08:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 80402 invoked by uid 99); 3 Dec 2009 11:08:36 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:08:36 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yberg@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-pz0-f172.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:08:33 +0000 Received: by pzk2 with SMTP id 2so1144556pzk.26 for <yberg@example.com>; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:08:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=VDEPBX+fYH4rCMzKXyuUYR0i/RNEBO/6cbVNjl/Vqpw=; b=tDshohnv5kVLJitptDzeX61APkSopwhA0ZbY3wkh5f946ptXqPomhWjO7mXvsnxOnI YKRdjhnsErNpalwxTcKOYppw7JBm9qbLSufXNTUG1GYWuCOOu3jYGb0kLAypXlq4k+wQ 2M4PXUB7uNUKLAKDan34X1jCyF/QKWh0sd1oA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=kJFJcjCcnjXYA1Fgv5ybEV61lWYM9UP9ckvujO+OE0SINeYwlY0zC89+jQHpqFmz2h 4NWkMf8bTwUdsP+3YQuYjjNG0vXqnG6NubDCkQZpY9kD2SSoEXlWcfO3PXNszg3NaE9/ hbQy9c4ogANZ7bsV2ZFzo6algTzL8X5iwuwGI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id o18mr100062rvd.269.1259838493778; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:08:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> References: <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:38:13 +0530 Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Subject: Re: [MINA 3.0] Initial thoughts on FilterChain From: Ashish <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > What about the assertion that new filters only get created to simulate a > state machine? Finally, managed to check-in some of the initial thoughts. The transition handler or the computeNext function is still to be out in. -- thanks ashish Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal From yberg@example.com Thu Dec 03 15:13:47 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 33845 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2009 15:13:47 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Dec 2009 15:13:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 72936 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2009 15:13:47 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 72843 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2009 15:13:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 72833 invoked by uid 99); 3 Dec 2009 15:13:46 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:13:46 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of yberg@example.com does not designate 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-gx0-f215.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:13:36 +0000 Received: by gxk7 with SMTP id 7so1995273gxk.12 for <yberg@example.com>; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:13:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id w8mr2014058ann.187.1259853195566; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:13:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?83.161.120.155? (c-67-180-154-175.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [83.161.120.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 9sm1071728yxf.41.283.161.120.155.13.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:13:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <yberg@example.com> From: "Alan D. Cabrera" <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: [MINA 3.0] Initial thoughts on FilterChain Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 07:13:11 -0800 References: <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Ashish wrote: >> What about the assertion that new filters only get created to >> simulate a >> state machine? > > Finally, managed to check-in some of the initial thoughts. > The transition handler or the computeNext function is still to be > out in. Sorry. Not sure how that answers my question other than to detail what you've done and what you're about to do. Regards, Alan From yberg@example.com Thu Dec 03 19:08:42 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 80284 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2009 19:08:42 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Dec 2009 19:08:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 57554 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2009 19:08:41 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 57423 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2009 19:08:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 57406 invoked by uid 99); 3 Dec 2009 19:08:39 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:08:39 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yberg@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:08:35 +0000 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so393661eyb.4 for <yberg@example.com>; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:08:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=s9zbvR/cHdrB8jTa/iB4UW3WrSCN7wnj7BaERHZm+G0=; b=J+KiMjrV3i88zk8JTzfisqNx4fbIYu89cKH354PRscLckvet6TgwL46m5Kadd3LcwQ whPONwb/sCpQgMAmiseiMwiu5Oi1jrC/E8mvr7GizXQ+bfrM9rjEYYUR2dOj/+qrtUV7 Sd5z+P6IbJahoP5r8Fhm11GMfFpNBX2x0FBVc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=evqNKjy3wxUVO+LzfMssbZ5xtbHnsFFvNL+olxXAa+dHtCa8iLjuMvDvN1qEHKtaCW mFZfOyI21RKOlepUqV2Tj9hSdbanu3q+1sSgmRs0hWSJ23dRxVQ8ebG9400CijM06Oeo MOKYPdWIyCMJfVt4miKkbmmeOhQjfLxyJh0lI= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id k22mr2089111ebp.89.1259867293676; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:08:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from emmanuel-lecharnys-MacBook-Pro.local (lon92-10-78-226-4-211.fbx.proxad.net [83.161.120.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 15sm1473630ewy.8.283.161.120.155.08.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:08:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:08:10 +0100 From: Emmanuel Lecharny <yberg@example.com> Reply-To: yberg@example.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yberg@example.com Subject: Errors while building sshd (trunk) on mac Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mac OSX 10.6, $ java -version java version "1.6.0_15" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_15-b03-219) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.1-b02-90, mixed mode) $ mvn --version mvn --version Maven version: 2.0.9 Java version: 1.6.0_15 OS name: "mac os x" version: "10.6.2" arch: "x86_64" Family: "mac" $ mvn clean install ... Tests in error: testFailAuthentication(org.apache.sshd.ServerTest) testScp(org.apache.sshd.ScpTest) Tests run: 41, Failures: 0, Errors: 2, Skipped: 3 [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [ERROR] BUILD FAILURE [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] There are test failures. Please refer to /Users/elecharny/mina/sshd/sshd-core/target/surefire-reports for the individual test results. From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 01:28:58 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 41086 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 01:28:58 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 01:28:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 92137 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 01:28:57 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 92110 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 01:28:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 92100 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 01:28:55 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:28:55 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yberg@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-pz0-f172.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:28:51 +0000 Received: by pzk2 with SMTP id 2so1953931pzk.26 for <yberg@example.com>; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:28:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=mTNfR8sgXe5Y6M8bB08b9zaFgyllXAO6saYysPGIwok=; b=irIIIHqKzu6DB5Nb+e7974zEgsQt5a1eZxb1hQ5/Ozlg6PzSZEwhNizVU+3IaUFv8P 1vkuPUFObVwE8FRVZKen1ZsDRdrLavMoLqHhKtS9+xUqDM4Sy7ilFrPVk4MHxnET8+fz USqvO5wLTbhpU2951b801Us2KlIepQI3C8Wg0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=se8sZjIfDtn+uJpks7tuDcdASr4pIIclql+eTGJrsUDC9V9+a9jWM0PlmCwftSxa9/ L7Gv5b7GV7scfOtRahzgk28hjEEiZi1TLu6fgEmuixHQxjJVso/ItP+k4mbGeKRPlQc1 44V7hxa0p6/z+5ie4KyjN9S9sXatqcDWQEZtw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id x3mr138317rvc.142.1259890110668; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:28:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> References: <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 06:58:30 +0530 Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Subject: Re: [MINA 3.0] Initial thoughts on FilterChain From: Ashish <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>> What about the assertion that new filters only get created to simulate a >>> state machine? >> >> Finally, managed to check-in some of the initial thoughts. >> The transition handler or the computeNext function is still to be out in. > > Sorry. Not sure how that answers my question other than to detail what > you've done and what you're about to do. > OOPS! :-( I think I am getting old After a discussion we thought that we shall make it possible for user's to choose the way we want Filter transitions That's what the transition handler is :-) Default implementation shall be of next Filter in the chain. User's can plugin their implementations for transition say like a State Machine implementation. Since I couldn't take it to logical conclusion, still working on it :) Also my experience with State machines is limited, so will need a helping hand here (or may be some references :-) ) -- thanks ashish Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 08:41:59 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 68079 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 08:41:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 08:41:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 34970 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 08:41:58 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 34896 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 08:41:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 34886 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 08:41:57 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:41:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:41:55 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65FE234C045 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:41:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1875479373.1259916093848.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:41:33 +0000 (UTC) From: "chuanwen chen (JIRA)" <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Subject: [jira] Commented: (DIRMINA-668) Modify the way we use IoProcessors In-Reply-To: <214452464.1236556316193.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-668?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785820#action_12785820 ] chuanwen chen commented on DIRMINA-668: --------------------------------------- Not sure where requests will be blocked. > Modify the way we use IoProcessors > ---------------------------------- > > Key: DIRMINA-668 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-668 > Project: MINA > Issue Type: Improvement > Affects Versions: 2.0.0-M4 > Reporter: Emmanuel Lecharny > Fix For: 3.0.0-M1 > > > In the current code base, when accepting new connections, we pick a processor and register the news connection within the internal selector. In other words, we have as many selectors as we have IoProcessors. > This is a potential problem if some request cost a lot to be executed, as every requests waiting on this IoProcessor will be blocked. > It would be way better to use a single selector which dispatches requests to an Executor, as we will always have available threads ready to process the requests (unless the pool is saturated, but then we have a bigger issue ...) -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 08:43:45 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 68963 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 08:43:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 08:43:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 36432 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 08:43:44 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 36358 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 08:43:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 36348 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 08:43:44 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:43:44 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:43:41 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8DB234C04C for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:43:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1510334331.1259916200705.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:43:20 +0000 (UTC) From: "chuanwen chen (JIRA)" <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Subject: [jira] Issue Comment Edited: (DIRMINA-668) Modify the way we use IoProcessors In-Reply-To: <214452464.1236556316193.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-668?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785820#action_12785820 ] chuanwen chen edited comment on DIRMINA-668 at 12/4/09 8:43 AM: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Not sure where requests will be blocked, or will you explain "cost lots"? was (Author: cfsego): Not sure where requests will be blocked. > Modify the way we use IoProcessors > ---------------------------------- > > Key: DIRMINA-668 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-668 > Project: MINA > Issue Type: Improvement > Affects Versions: 2.0.0-M4 > Reporter: Emmanuel Lecharny > Fix For: 3.0.0-M1 > > > In the current code base, when accepting new connections, we pick a processor and register the news connection within the internal selector. In other words, we have as many selectors as we have IoProcessors. > This is a potential problem if some request cost a lot to be executed, as every requests waiting on this IoProcessor will be blocked. > It would be way better to use a single selector which dispatches requests to an Executor, as we will always have available threads ready to process the requests (unless the pool is saturated, but then we have a bigger issue ...) -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 08:45:46 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 69371 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 08:45:45 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 08:45:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 39429 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 08:45:45 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 39360 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 08:45:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 39350 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 08:45:45 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:45:45 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:45:42 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66ED2234C04C for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:45:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1235707887.1259916321419.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:45:21 +0000 (UTC) From: "chuanwen chen (JIRA)" <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Subject: [jira] Issue Comment Edited: (DIRMINA-668) Modify the way we use IoProcessors In-Reply-To: <214452464.1236556316193.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-668?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785820#action_12785820 ] chuanwen chen edited comment on DIRMINA-668 at 12/4/09 8:43 AM: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Not sure where requests will be blocked, or will you explain "cost a lot"? was (Author: cfsego): Not sure where requests will be blocked, or will you explain "cost lots"? > Modify the way we use IoProcessors > ---------------------------------- > > Key: DIRMINA-668 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-668 > Project: MINA > Issue Type: Improvement > Affects Versions: 2.0.0-M4 > Reporter: Emmanuel Lecharny > Fix For: 3.0.0-M1 > > > In the current code base, when accepting new connections, we pick a processor and register the news connection within the internal selector. In other words, we have as many selectors as we have IoProcessors. > This is a potential problem if some request cost a lot to be executed, as every requests waiting on this IoProcessor will be blocked. > It would be way better to use a single selector which dispatches requests to an Executor, as we will always have available threads ready to process the requests (unless the pool is saturated, but then we have a bigger issue ...) -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 08:52:32 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 71172 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 08:52:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 08:52:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 51226 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 08:52:32 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 51154 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 08:52:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 51144 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 08:52:31 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:52:31 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail43.e.nsc.no) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:52:30 +0000 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (179-151-8.connect.netcom.no [83.161.120.155]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail43.nsc.no (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB48q4qP009138 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:52:06 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:51:58 +0100 From: Glenn Ivar Klausen <yberg@example.com> Organization: Asvito User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yberg@example.com Subject: Version 2.x - Norweigian Wood Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is my first post to the MINA mailing list, and I don't want to step on any toes, but I could not help it. Seriously, isn't "Version 2.x - Norweigian Wood" embarrassing. G From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 10:16:04 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 8180 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 10:16:04 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 10:16:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 73426 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 10:16:03 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 73330 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 10:16:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 73320 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 10:16:02 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:16:02 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yberg@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-ew0-f227.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:16:00 +0000 Received: by ewy27 with SMTP id 27so3810669ewy.36 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:15:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RqI0jIqPm+7LCuvdex7VLgquRbvbie97rywF0uy6T+E=; b=mVZruwc3SqYMFjS0YZyt+qOVYhcCaA1bePq6VddWMr1gd8Umm4uqfKiRvWLUhceiFr fIiq/TRwvgxTaHgg0yAOW/T61xSoCjlUFm2GhpQIH9iwgCdRV7If2187v/2Gl/5jwHjH 8KHBcSMUSRkLzvOh0MLXye81xHvH8ongeUnuw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pW4hisRshaC4Fl5OJeuJ/hoiGjPEhlxmgG0PRq+E+fn3H3AHrAEB9WcQjSZP8GKFlj aS/rw4kiQScmuuXn3JHMToPxp+QWRWrhhPQDaZTYx237FibGTce8bVcdjvm1R92hL1cV VLtYT/Dyzflp630OcyvM56rAviMCxnNrDCKbQ= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id y2mr10455493ebb.97.1259921739543; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:15:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from emmanuel-lecharnys-MacBook-Pro.local (lon92-10-78-226-4-211.fbx.proxad.net [83.161.120.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm5160252eyz.23.283.161.120.155.15.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:15:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:15:33 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?RW1tYW51ZWwgTMKOY2hhcm55?= <yberg@example.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yberg@example.com Subject: Re: Version 2.x - Norweigian Wood References: <yberg@example.com> In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Glenn Ivar Klausen a écrit : > > This is my first post to the MINA mailing list, and I don't want to > step on any toes, but I could not help it. > > Seriously, isn't "Version 2.x - Norweigian Wood" embarrassing. Well, less than "dead wood"... This name was picked by someone who was at the origin of the project, at a time he was pretty alone working on it (since then, he quit). I personnaly don't think it's a good idea to attach a name with a version, à la Ubuntu (I have always been totally lost with Intrepid Jakal or Laughable Vampire, not being able to make a connection with 8.04 or 9.10). Anyway, I think we should get rid of those useless nicknames. Team ? From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 10:17:51 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 8679 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 10:17:51 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 10:17:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 76894 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 10:17:51 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 76816 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 10:17:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 76806 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 10:17:51 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:17:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 83.161.120.155 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of yberg@example.com) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-fx0-f220.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:17:26 +0000 Received: by fxm20 with SMTP id 20so4071651fxm.35 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:17:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id m11mr288381hbp.8.1259921824517; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:17:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> References: <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 11:17:04 +0100 Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Subject: Re: Version 2.x - Norweigian Wood From: Niklas Gustavsson <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Emmanuel L=C5=BDcharny <yberg@example.com= m> wrote: > Anyway, I think we should get rid of those useless nicknames. +1 /niklas From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 10:20:43 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 10244 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 10:20:43 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 10:20:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 78609 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 10:20:43 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 78515 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 10:20:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 78504 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 10:20:42 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:20:42 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:20:40 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB0D234C1F0 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 02:20:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <137411094.1259922020706.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:20:20 +0000 (UTC) From: "Emmanuel Lecharny (JIRA)" <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Subject: [jira] Commented: (DIRMINA-668) Modify the way we use IoProcessors In-Reply-To: <214452464.1236556316193.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-668?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12785852#action_12785852 ] Emmanuel Lecharny commented on DIRMINA-668: ------------------------------------------- AFAIR, when a new message arrives, as it is associated with a session, it's beng processed by a IoProcessor. As an IoProcessor also holds the selector, we can't process more than one message at a time in a single IoProcessor (hopefully, we have more than one IoProcessor). So if the message is costly to process (ie, yu access a database in the middle), in a loaded system, messages can be blocked a long time before being processed, waiing for the crrent message to be completed. This is what I meant. Hope it's clearer. > Modify the way we use IoProcessors > ---------------------------------- > > Key: DIRMINA-668 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-668 > Project: MINA > Issue Type: Improvement > Affects Versions: 2.0.0-M4 > Reporter: Emmanuel Lecharny > Fix For: 3.0.0-M1 > > > In the current code base, when accepting new connections, we pick a processor and register the news connection within the internal selector. In other words, we have as many selectors as we have IoProcessors. > This is a potential problem if some request cost a lot to be executed, as every requests waiting on this IoProcessor will be blocked. > It would be way better to use a single selector which dispatches requests to an Executor, as we will always have available threads ready to process the requests (unless the pool is saturated, but then we have a bigger issue ...) -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 11:40:36 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 31095 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 11:40:35 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 11:40:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 75596 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 11:40:35 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 75523 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 11:40:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 75513 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 11:40:35 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:40:35 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO hudson.zones.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:40:33 +0000 Received: from hudson.zones.apache.org (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by hudson.zones.apache.org (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB4Be93W024738 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 06:40:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 11:40:09 +0000 (UTC) From: Apache Hudson Server <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Hudson_build_became_unstable:_vysper-trun?= =?UTF-8?Q?k-jdk1.6-solaris_=C2=BB_Apache_Vysper_Core_#166?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org See <http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/vysper-trunk-jdk1.6-solaris/org.apache.vysper$vysper-core/166/changes> From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 12:04:02 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 35753 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 12:04:02 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 12:04:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 98972 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 12:04:02 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 98907 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 12:04:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Delivered-To: moderator for yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 87834 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 11:57:04 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yberg@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=5CXitIVLKfI4MFQk6FWzNyB/UqpeC7tRcuP3jmukqB4=; b=hNRhy0VfGIsCE2k3IS5c8M7i2EBf220bUpJNz0NKFAePFQ7Z0Oljiq2tocCwVk1gJ9 V7PK68akz8uAy6ZIBC0Gmk+gV3J70OecmNOibZn3IRCNKb76I1TH3X1VDbgWC8iiT3JT 6+i7ckXFZzbzCq2UHTfRFQEEhAthc0cJVXkbA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=l3ZTZKOD8GAvdxVekZxkRvJWtPP4ypS58UULR0H10xbXctQNWc01YZ8HmYtdGou2BQ 5zYDWjyvIeq1nXGpA0lTkya11tOR8HuGM3Krbl8J4Wikq7AOwCgaFGbmdbRwhDzhFUYO /eSVDCNzCayixIxay6hza8iEhWZcqeePxmLc0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:26:35 +0530 Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Subject: Does SSHD support call back methods before providing a password From: Prasad Shindikar <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd6e832b4fd320479e5cc79 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --000e0cd6e832b4fd320479e5cc79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi SSHD Users, I have a business scenario where I cannot provide passwords directly to the SSHD client code. I have a security gateway which kicks in whenever I SSH (using SSHD) into a given remote machine. This gateway, does not directly accept a simple clear text password. Instead it outputs a few things on the console, and a combination of these things gives me a unique password which if entered will successfully login to the machine. So, my question here is can I in someway access the console (to get the above mentioned things) using SSHD, so that I can calculate the unique response and set it as password before the SSHD client code connects to the remote machine. Hope I am being clear here. :-) Is there some call back mechanism while connecting, using which I can hook the required authentication ? Any help or pointers for the same will be appreciated. Regards, Prasad Shindikar --000e0cd6e832b4fd320479e5cc79-- From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 12:06:54 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 36288 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 12:06:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 12:06:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 954 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 12:06:53 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 873 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 12:06:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 863 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 12:06:53 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:06:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yberg@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-bw0-f217.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:06:41 +0000 Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so4805088bwz.32 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:06:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3VxPYVJs+dtXSJtbibykmdRMUK4w1E6LkSRGRNmG9Pw=; b=t8GgmT4EkOnOlZWXt5/10j+bsB1U+G9O5nhJ026rter+mXJ/qTPtwdgMB8VWfQsDpG XdLODaIRYfDI7vPR9nsnguokbHup4aRrN+kcEAx7SECwKhLj86yjMUm+9O9Kv+jZnbXY Nh5sabglDnA6ORRV0FSxWf78H0pzBJaCq/sao= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ttrkQKqTukqh3uGsrYfSUxSTcH+b72eU0EepU7N1wgYFFEWblQ0f97vtcackXtuBen xPu3TT28vZ8cSB+gmQ+wW/M713ileAqazXeKHJNVplHjrs00SLNXFgdOO+Zxcl3TyQ7C VRnS/8wlCRcQ/kBiD+998kc+xvk0g/z7b6qAQ= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id d18mr3089397bkw.203.1259928381377; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:06:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from emmanuel-lecharnys-MacBook-Pro.local (lon92-10-78-226-4-211.fbx.proxad.net [83.161.120.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b17sm3437718fka.16.283.161.120.155.06.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:06:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:06:19 +0100 From: Emmanuel Lecharny <yberg@example.com> Reply-To: yberg@example.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yberg@example.com Subject: Re: Does SSHD support call back methods before providing a password References: <yberg@example.com> In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Prasad Shindikar a écrit : > Hi SSHD Users, > If this is for users, why did you cross posted this mail to the dev list ??? Please read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#asking. Thanks. From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 12:19:55 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 39120 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 12:19:55 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 12:19:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 18826 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 12:19:55 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 18754 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 12:19:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 18744 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 12:19:55 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:19:55 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail47.e.nsc.no) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:19:45 +0000 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (77-99-8.connect.netcom.no [83.161.120.155]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail47.nsc.no (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB4CJLMj026939 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 13:19:23 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:19:15 +0100 From: Glenn Ivar Klausen <yberg@example.com> Organization: Asvito User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yberg@example.com Subject: Re: Version 2.x - Norweigian Wood References: <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Emmanuel LŽcharny wrote: > Well, less than "dead wood"... > > This name was picked by someone who was at the origin of the project, > at a time he was pretty alone working on it (since then, he quit). I > personnaly don't think it's a good idea to attach a name with a > version, à la Ubuntu (I have always been totally lost with Intrepid > Jakal or Laughable Vampire, not being able to make a connection with > 8.04 or 9.10). > > Anyway, I think we should get rid of those useless nicknames. > > Ok, ... I was just referring to the fact that Norwegian is spelled wrong, however, its a good point regarding the nick names. G (Norwegian) From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 12:25:49 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 40368 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 12:25:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 12:25:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 24552 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 12:25:49 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 24474 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 12:25:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 24464 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 12:25:48 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:25:48 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yberg@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail-ew0-f227.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:25:39 +0000 Received: by ewy27 with SMTP id 27so4105763ewy.36 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:25:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MuroPticzjEmpNeOh9RbB7yMin3LZJTNJbwFCi7wUFo=; b=XSeq0ECLbX+pzgeYV9McX/MJ4NV7FMJMTnX4Qs/R7HEKNXHDDHHmwCcZZcB8JFQo13 EGcG/abykYGOD3V38N0XRWP1flebh1H7QM2CmGC7dkXdmRqZ18djWgPhNKXN63bbDR4b mQsiZs9MDvtPwLUP3lyx0fd2ClwKB+T+bCnYs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=t5moVmaCIJbNYSxcRI+/JK9uQDL4nn/17v2U54fKmejnGLo3ly56G10YkNHhiosnfq sJ760ptFk5CSjSmA1aFrDsS3t9DVq0tzNwOgBd96SYj+ovR6S4ucNE/mDABb5P1oA7nX Wp1Mu4Xc7kmbqEmEzyRTnNR0yLaodzomgpFDQ= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id i10mr10585044ebn.99.1259929517926; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:25:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from emmanuel-lecharnys-MacBook-Pro.local (lon92-10-78-226-4-211.fbx.proxad.net [83.161.120.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 13sm1847990ewy.1.283.161.120.155.25.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:25:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:25:15 +0100 From: Emmanuel Lecharny <yberg@example.com> Reply-To: yberg@example.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yberg@example.com Subject: Re: Version 2.x - Norweigian Wood References: <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> <yberg@example.com> In-Reply-To: <yberg@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Glenn Ivar Klausen a écrit : > Emmanuel LŽcharny wrote: >> Well, less than "dead wood"... >> >> This name was picked by someone who was at the origin of the project, >> at a time he was pretty alone working on it (since then, he quit). I >> personnaly don't think it's a good idea to attach a name with a >> version, à la Ubuntu (I have always been totally lost with Intrepid >> Jakal or Laughable Vampire, not being able to make a connection with >> 8.04 or 9.10). >> >> Anyway, I think we should get rid of those useless nicknames. >> >> > > Ok, ... I was just referring to the fact that Norwegian is spelled > wrong, however, its a good point regarding the nick names. > > G (Norwegian) Wikipedia, about "Norwegian wood" : "This exchange took place in a press conference in Los Angeles on 24 August 1966: Reporter: I'd like to direct this question to messrs. Lennon and McCartney. In a recent article, Time magazine put down pop music. And they referred to "Day Tripper" as being about a prostitute... Paul: Oh yeah. Reporter: ...and "Norwegian Wood" as being about a lesbian. Paul: Oh yeah." :) From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 12:39:59 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 50721 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 12:39:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 12:39:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 44092 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 12:39:58 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 44015 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 12:39:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 44005 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 12:39:58 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:39:58 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO hudson.zones.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:39:56 +0000 Received: from hudson.zones.apache.org (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by hudson.zones.apache.org (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB4CdZNn026822 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 07:39:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:39:35 +0000 (UTC) From: Apache Hudson Server <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Hudson_build_is_back_to_stable:_vysper-trunk-jdk1.6-?= =?UTF-8?Q?solaris_=C2=BB_Apache_Vysper_XEP-0045_Multi-user_chat_#167?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See <http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/vysper-trunk-jdk1.6-solaris/org.apache.vysper.extensions$xep0045-muc/167/> From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 13:11:47 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 57333 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 13:11:47 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 13:11:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 76385 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 13:11:46 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 76300 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 13:11:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 76290 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 13:11:46 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:11:46 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO hudson.zones.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:11:44 +0000 Received: from hudson.zones.apache.org (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by hudson.zones.apache.org (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB4DBLOl028349 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:11:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 13:11:21 +0000 (UTC) From: Apache Hudson Server <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Hudson_build_became_unstable:_vysper-trun?= =?UTF-8?Q?k-jdk1.5-solaris_=C2=BB_Apache_Vysper_Core_#169?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org See <http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/vysper-trunk-jdk1.5-solaris/org.apache.vysper$vysper-core/169/changes> From yberg@example.com Fri Dec 04 13:11:51 2009 Return-Path: <yberg@example.com> Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 57409 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2009 13:11:51 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2009 13:11:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 76801 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 13:11:50 -0000 Delivered-To: yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 76740 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2009 13:11:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact yberg@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:yberg@example.com> List-Id: <dev.mina.apache.org> Reply-To: yberg@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list yberg@example.com Received: (qmail 76730 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2009 13:11:50 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:11:50 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO hudson.zones.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:11:48 +0000 Received: from hudson.zones.apache.org (localhost [83.161.120.155]) by hudson.zones.apache.org (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB4DBQEV028354 for <yberg@example.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:11:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 13:11:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Apache Hudson Server <yberg@example.com> To: yberg@example.com Message-ID: <yberg@example.com> Subject: Hudson build became unstable: vysper-trunk-jdk1.5-solaris #169 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org See <http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/vysper-trunk-jdk1.5-solaris/169/changes> From yberg@example.com
{'source': 'Apache Software Foundation Public Mail Archives'}