2014-04-23 18:30 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> I'd agree with that assessment.
>
> I do remember having to be very careful with some of that code to get
> things working correctly. If there is a cleaner solution then I'd be all
> for it as long as performance is no worse.
>
> Mark
>
> [1] http://svn.a
re is a cleaner solution then I'd be all
for it as long as performance is no worse.
Mark
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1358055
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>
>> 2014-04-23 16:50 GMT+02:00 Filip Ha
pping.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2014-04-23 16:50 GMT+02:00 Filip Hanik :
>
> > >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.
> >
&
2014-04-23 16:50 GMT+02:00 Filip Hanik :
> >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
>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.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not convinced by the NIO buffering that is used on output. Due to
> co
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 do
