Yea, let me see
> On 29 Dec 2025, at 14:05, David Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ah, if the methods are being deleted, then I suppose we have no choice but to
> switch, if you are interested in doing that; if there's a performance issue
> then hopefully one of the Flight users can catch it.
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025, at 13:38, Sơn Nguyễn wrote:
>> Hi David
>>
>> Thank for your answer. So I guess I can’t do anything now, It would be a lot
>> of efforts to implement correctly and setup the benchmark.
>> One more thing, he has created a PR
>> https://github.com/grpc/grpc-java/pull/12580 (merged) to delete some
>> functions in ReadableBuffer that arrow is using like
>> ReadableBuffer.readBytes(ByteBuffer dest) check the screenshot below, so I
>> guess there would be a big change for next release.
>>
>> Regarding the Tiny url, I will stop using them next time. Thanks
>>
>> <Screenshot 2025-12-29 at 11.34.25.png>
>>
>>> On 29 Dec 2025, at 11:22, David Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>
