很久沒更新blog了，實(shí)在太忙，今天看到有朋友在我去年的blog《
MINA is a good framwork 》中回復(fù)提到比較一下MNA和QuickServer，遂寫一篇小文：
First for all, QuickServer is licensed as LGPL, and MINA as ASL
從我個(gè)人角度而言，去年看過QuickServer的源碼，我在項(xiàng)目中采用的每一個(gè)框架或類庫都會做綜合評價(jià)，通常不會是一個(gè)原因?qū)е挛也捎没驔]有采用某個(gè)庫或框架，具體最后沒有采用QuickServer的原因忘記了，但是當(dāng)時(shí)給我的總體感覺是，QuickServer雖然很方便，但不會讓我在架構(gòu)上得到新的好處。而它最大的優(yōu)點(diǎn)則是，支持JDK1.3（如果沒記錯的話），另外就是License的問題
下面看一看來自TrusinLee的評論：
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.)
至于對MINA更詳細(xì)的介紹，可以看看我去年翻譯的MINA的Tutorial
MinaTutorialInChinese
MINA的應(yīng)用，在MINA的Testimonials中有兩個(gè)項(xiàng)目：
開源Flash server：red5
http://ludonet.leonardo.it/的game server
還有，就是MINA所在的項(xiàng)目，Apache的LDAP