Ok, Mark would know the exact details. It simply looks like a when a buffer has been flipped already, to simplify adding more bytes, add it to a new unflipped buffer, rather than append to existing one. So I don't think its about reuse, I think it may be to simplify the handling of buffer flipping.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Rémy Maucherat <r...@apache.org> wrote: > 2014-04-23 16:50 GMT+02:00 Filip Hanik <fi...@hanik.com>: > > > >I am not convinced by the NIO buffering that is used on output. > > > > what are you exactly referring to? Maybe I can shed some light on it. > > > > Ok, so more precisely I was talking about the > AbstractOutputBuffer.bufferedWrites field. > > Rémy > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Rémy Maucherat <r...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am not convinced by the NIO buffering that is used on output. Due to > > > concurrent access issues I couldn't use it in NIO 2, but then I cannot > > see > > > either what it does to justify using a more complex structure over a > > > simpler array list. > > > > > > If the idea was to reuse buffers (which it doesn't), there is no option > > > except using a static buffer pool. Was that the original general idea > > > around this deque structure ? > > > > > > Then the upgrade buffering is even more basic, but is probably not a > > > performance issue, the current code is likely fast enough since it is > so > > > lightweight. > > > > > > Rémy > > > > > >
