On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:13:21 +0300 Eero Nevalainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Julien Vermillard wrote: > > On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:27:06 +0300 > > "Cem Uzunlar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Yes, it would definitely be a very good option. > >> > >> 2008/5/6 "이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> There's an obvious situation that a user doesn't want WriteFuture > >>> at all. In such a case, we could save pretty much amount of > >>> memory per each write request by not creating WriteFuture. > >>> > >>> Not sure if this will interfere with existing IoFilters though. > >>> -- > >>> Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat > >>> -- > >>> what we call human nature is actually human habit > >>> -- > >>> http://gleamynode.net/ > >>> > >>> > > > > So we can introduce > > void write(..); > > and > > WriteFuture writeWithFuture(..); > > or > WriteFuture write(..); > and > void writeAndForget(..); > > Depends on which is the default (I don't know so don't ask) > > -Eero Nevalainen > I think most of time you don't care of the WriteFuture, so in most of case you don't have the WriteFuture object created and you consume less memory. I propose : void write(..) as default and a WriteFuture writeWithFuture(..); or something else if someone got a better idea because I'm not sure to have the best wording here ;) WDYT ? Julien
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature