Hi Remy, 2016-08-26 15:06 GMT+03:00 Rémy Maucherat <r...@apache.org>: > > 2016-08-26 12:23 GMT+02:00 <violet...@apache.org>: > > > Author: violetagg > > Date: Fri Aug 26 10:23:15 2016 > > New Revision: 1757813 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1757813&view=rev > > Log: > > Introduce a new method SocketWrapperBase.doWrite(boolean, ByteBuffer) > > > > Modified: > > tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/AprEndpoint.java > > tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/Nio2Endpoint.java > > tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/NioEndpoint.java > > tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/SocketWrapperBase.java > > > > I did examine adding some ByteBuffer write methods (as you can see in the > API), with gather writes in mind with NIO2 for HTTP/2, but: > - Since the other write method also exists, if the main buffer isn't empty, > there will be corruption. Let's say that's not a problem: the user is > supposed to know what it is doing and will have to flush :) > - A single buffer is most likely more memory efficient. > - I redid HTTP/2 with my async gather writes, minimizing contention more, > and ... the performance was measurably worse than the regular code. So I > gave up on it. Maybe reads will be more useful (no more blocking reads for > HTTP/2 headers, this is not really supposed to happen of course, but still > decent to have). > - When using SSL, the single buffer system is *way* better since it can be > a direct BB, which avoids a ton of allocation and buffer copies. > > So I doubt this is more useful than my own additions, but on the positive > side, the changes are minimal. >
This is just a preparation for the next commits. I'm not going to remove the write methods with byte array for the moment but introduce in parallel write method with ByteBuffer. When implementing CoyoteOutputStream.write(ByteBuffer) I do not want to make conversion to byte array but want to use ByteBuffer only. Thanks, Violeta > Rémy
