Re: Is MINA ByteBuffer pool of dubious value?

[peter royal]

On Nov 17, 2006, at 5:17 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:

In this context, I think the value of the default buffer pooling that MINA

provides might be dubious.  If this is true, should we have to have

buffer management?

acquire() and release() methods sacrificing API usability? Why don't we just get rid of (or deprecate) them and let the VM take care of the whole

So +1 to removal of pooling.

I would still keep direct buffers as an option though.

-pete


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://fotap.org/~osi

Since the GC has improved so much in modern JVMs, i think it might make sense to remove the pooling. Would be nice to test on uniprocessor machines to ensure that this holds true there, but as Trustin pointed out, buffers *should* only hang around in the eden space and thus be fairly easy to GC.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature