2016-09-01 9:16 GMT+03:00 Rémy Maucherat <r...@apache.org>: > > 2016-08-31 19:55 GMT+02:00 Violeta Georgieva <miles...@gmail.com>: > > > Do you mean the APR case or also NIO and NIO2? With the new API > > CoyoteOutputStream.write(ByteBuffer) the application layer may provide > > direct ByteBuffers so why should we copy them to the socket write buffer > > and not use them directly? > > > > I'm talking about NIO+OpenSSL where it's done in our code, for example, > but internally the JDK does it too. > Even if the application can suddenly use direct buffers, that's not a good > idea since GC isn't working and it's more costly (see ByteBufferUtils. > cleanDirectBuffer). IMO the best model remains using a (direct) buffer > where all writes go through in that case. I think it is disappointing too > since it takes away a lot of my improvement ideas (NIO2 scatter/gather, for > starters). > > So I think your API change is probably good, but at the end it's going to > be better to write to / read from the socket buffer in many cases rather > than directly on the socket. It could be a good idea to always do it for > consistency. > > More experimentation is needed.
Yes sure. I'll continue with the experiments. Any other feedback for the changes that I introduced (working directly with ByteBuffers etc.) is most welcome. Thanks a lot, Violeta > > > Rémy
