MINA vs. QuickServer MinaSpring框架FlashApache
程序员文章站
2024-01-13 09:38:58
...
很久没更新blog了，实在太忙，今天看到有朋友在我去年的blog《MINA is a good framwork 》中回复提到比较一下MNA和QuickServer，遂写一篇小文：
First for all, QuickServer is licensed as LGPL, and MINA as ASL
从我个人角度而言，去年看过QuickServer的源码，我在项目中采用的每一个框架或类库都会做综合评价，通常不会是一个原因导致我采用或没有采用某个库或框架，具体最后没有采用QuickServer的原因忘记了，但是当时给我的总体感觉是，QuickServer虽然很方便，但不会让我在架构上得到新的好处。而它最大的优点则是，支持JDK1.3（如果没记错的话），另外就是License的问题
下面看一看来自TrusinLee的评论：
Thank for the information about another network application framework. I found a few differences:
* QuickServer supports blocking mode. (MINA supports only non-blocking mode, but you can make your operation block at your will.)
* QuickServer provides GUI-based admin. (MINA doesn't have one yet, but will have full JMX support soon, which is a standard.)
* QuickServer uses java.util.logging. (MINA uses SLF4J, which is a safe replacement of commons-logging.)
* QuickServer uses its own XML settings. (MINA provides Spring framework integration instead.)
* QuickServer can specify maximum number of clients allowed. (MINA can do this using a filter, but not implemented by default. Of course, this will be implemented as an overload prevention filter.)
* QuickServer team has one crew. (MINA has three crews.)
* QuickServer project started in 2003. (MINA started in 2005.)
* QuickServer has a difference event handler interface from MINA. (You'll have to compare it by yourself. IMHO, MINA has one simple enough handler which covers all QuickServer provides.)
* QuickServer doesn't support UDP at all. (MINA does)
* QuickServer doesn't support client-side API at all. (MINA does)
* QuickServer integrated authentication and text protocol in its core. (MINA didn't and they are considered as a cross-cutting concern that a filter should take care of. IMHO, MINA is more extensible here.)
至于对MINA更详细的介绍，可以看看我去年翻译的MINA的Tutorial
First for all, QuickServer is licensed as LGPL, and MINA as ASL
从我个人角度而言，去年看过QuickServer的源码，我在项目中采用的每一个框架或类库都会做综合评价，通常不会是一个原因导致我采用或没有采用某个库或框架，具体最后没有采用QuickServer的原因忘记了，但是当时给我的总体感觉是，QuickServer虽然很方便，但不会让我在架构上得到新的好处。而它最大的优点则是，支持JDK1.3（如果没记错的话），另外就是License的问题
下面看一看来自TrusinLee的评论：
Thank for the information about another network application framework. I found a few differences:
* QuickServer supports blocking mode. (MINA supports only non-blocking mode, but you can make your operation block at your will.)
* QuickServer provides GUI-based admin. (MINA doesn't have one yet, but will have full JMX support soon, which is a standard.)
* QuickServer uses java.util.logging. (MINA uses SLF4J, which is a safe replacement of commons-logging.)
* QuickServer uses its own XML settings. (MINA provides Spring framework integration instead.)
* QuickServer can specify maximum number of clients allowed. (MINA can do this using a filter, but not implemented by default. Of course, this will be implemented as an overload prevention filter.)
* QuickServer team has one crew. (MINA has three crews.)
* QuickServer project started in 2003. (MINA started in 2005.)
* QuickServer has a difference event handler interface from MINA. (You'll have to compare it by yourself. IMHO, MINA has one simple enough handler which covers all QuickServer provides.)
* QuickServer doesn't support UDP at all. (MINA does)
* QuickServer doesn't support client-side API at all. (MINA does)
* QuickServer integrated authentication and text protocol in its core. (MINA didn't and they are considered as a cross-cutting concern that a filter should take care of. IMHO, MINA is more extensible here.)
至于对MINA更详细的介绍，可以看看我去年翻译的MINA的Tutorial
MinaTutorialInChinese
MINA的应用，在MINA的Testimonials中有两个项目：
开源Flash server：red5
http://ludonet.leonardo.it/的game server
还有，就是MINA所在的项目，Apache的LDAP