On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Simone Bordet <simone.bor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Wenbo Zhu <wen...@google.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the update. > > > > === > > > > Is WebSocket out of the scope now? > > > > == async streams > > > > I.e. how bodies are to be read/written asynchronously, with flow-control > > (aka back pressures). > > > > There are many different styles or abstractions. IMO, if reactive streams > > are to be included in jdk9, we may want to adopt the same model (if not > the > > API). > > Okay. > > > Or we follow the NIO2 model (readiness), > > Please no ! :) > Ignoring the epoll part, is the issue in the API styles or the actual model? > > to not introduce another concept. > > Reactive streams and NIO2 are at 2 different levels of abstraction. > If it's not reactive streams, then it must be something new. > > FWIW, we're discussing with the Servlet 4 EG about introducing a > reactive stream API for Servlet 4 async I/O. > Not yet carved in stone, but it's getting a little traction. > Ah, I just cross-post this thread to the EG mailing list. > > -- > Simone Bordet > http://bordet.blogspot.com > --- > Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are, > to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability, > the implementation technique must be flawless. Victoria Livschitz >
