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 r...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
I am not convinced by the NIO buffering that is used on output. Due to
concurrent
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 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
for it as long as performance is no worse.
Mark
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1358055
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
2014-04-23 18:30 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org:
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]
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
