Hi, Agreeing with jeff, you can't complain of the lack of an accessor, when you just voided the attachment ;)
I really wonder what JDK guys have in mind with AIO, it's far of being a slick API, it doesn't support UDP (you need to mix AIO and NIO if you want to support TCP and UDP) and I can't see how it could be a performance gain ? After few year of usage I start to think the whole java.nio and java.concurency are weirdly designed API. Anyway we can't expect more performance for AIO since it's probably just an API built on top of NIO. If we want more performance, we need to zero copy interface with the linux epoll() sys call. But I'm not sure we want to do that :) The funny point is the message of the guy asking does jetty scale like vert.x :) IT peoples are pretty stupid sometimes and trust any crappy benchmark buzz. Julien On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]>wrote: > Le 3/1/13 5:00 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit : > > I don't quite follow his arguments because this is easily fixed by either > > using an anonymous class or a dedicated attachment. > > I'm more concern about the need to allocate a buffer for every read (a > clear no go from my POV) an about the write handling. > > I would like to see a chapter on performance as my POC is not really good > > on this point and I would like to know if the cause is clearly from NIO > or > > from my MINA adapter on top on NIO > > More to come... > > I guess the only way to know about that is first to build a prototype to > compare it with what we have and probably by looking at AIO code to see > if it's just a wrapper on top of NIO or something smarter that uses the > underlying OS asunc IO... > > > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > >
