On 11/01/18 23:12, Christopher Schultz wrote: <snip/>
> If performance is a consideration, then most of the calls to write() > should probably be calls to headerBuffer.put() because we can be > (reasonably?) sure that writing "HTTP/1.1 " to the output buffer isn't > going to overflow the buffer. Likewise with the bytes for the status > code. With an omitted reason phrase, even the trailing SP CR LF can be > collapsed into a single byte[] and written a single time to the > ByteBuffer, instead of individually as the current code does. > > If there is a reason to be inconsistent, let's state it and be > consistently inconsistent. If there is no such reason, let's be > consistent and either always call write() or always call > headerBuffer.put(). > > Thoughts? The length check in write includes an allowance for an additional 4 bytes. See BZ 57509 for background. I agree that the additional checks (via write()) in sendStatus() are unnecessary. If a user sets maxHttpHeaderSize so low you can't write the status line then a BufferOverflowException seems perfectly reasonable. I'm in favour of switching sendStatus() to use headerBuffer.put() throughout, along with adding a comment to the effect that the buffer is reset for each request so, unless maxHttpHeaderSize is set so low nothing works, the status line will always fit so write it directly without length checks. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
