Wenbo, On WebSockets, that API work is being handled separately to this work and will be put out for review very soon.
- Michael On 31/07/15 19:37, Wenbo Zhu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Simone Bordet <simone.bor...@gmail.com <mailto:simone.bor...@gmail.com>> wrote:Hi, On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Wenbo Zhu <wen...@google.com <mailto:wen...@google.com>> wrote: > Thanks for the update. > > === > > Is WebSocket out of the scope now? > > == async streams > > I.e. how bodies are to be read/written asynchronously, with flow-control > (aka back pressures). > > There are many different styles or abstractions. IMO, if reactive streams > are to be included in jdk9, we may want to adopt the same model (if not the > API). Okay. > Or we follow the NIO2 model (readiness), Please no ! :)Ignoring the epoll part, is the issue in the API styles or the actual model?> to not introduce another concept. Reactive streams and NIO2 are at 2 different levels of abstraction. If it's not reactive streams, then it must be something new. FWIW, we're discussing with the Servlet 4 EG about introducing a reactive stream API for Servlet 4 async I/O. Not yet carved in stone, but it's getting a little traction. Ah, I just cross-post this thread to the EG mailing list. -- Simone Bordet http://bordet.blogspot.com --- Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are, to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability, the implementation technique must be flawless. Victoria Livschitz
