You'd probably need to ask Jacques why the code is the way it is originally, but if there's supported ways to do this now, then yes, that would be preferred. However there's not really benchmarking set up to validate that it would be equivalent, so you'd need to demonstrate that it is still as performant.
(By the way, please don't use tinyurl to hide a GitHub link, it's a little suspicious...) On Mon, Dec 29, 2025, at 12:53, Sơn Nguyễn wrote: > Hi David, > > Sorry, I have to bothering you again. > But, do you have any opinions on this comment > https://tinyurl.com/3mpfpa85 from ejona86, one of the team member from > grpc-java > If what he said is true then do you welcome for a PR to update the way > we get the ByteBuffer (stop using reflection to get the ByteBuffer,...). > > Regards, > Son Nguyen > >> On 18 Dec 2025, at 08:21, Sơn Nguyễn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi David >> Thank you for your answer >> >>> On 18 Dec 2025, at 00:22, David Li <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> OkHttp is not tested. But feel free to try. >>> >>> In principle Flight is "just" a gRPC Protobuf definition. In practice I'm >>> not sure that's true, unfortunately. >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025, at 18:47, Sơn Nguyễn wrote: >>>> Hello guys. >>>> >>>> I need to use Okhttp as an underline transport for grpc, but as I >>>> checkout the Flight source code, I have a feeling that you guy only >>>> want make Flight works with Netty not Okhttp or any other transports. >>>> I want to ask that any reason that I should not use Okhttp for Flight? >>>> >>>> Thank you in advance >>
