On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Chris Hegarty
wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2018, at 17:52, Viktor Klang wrote:
> > ...
> > There is technical and non-technical effort required. It is non-trivial.
> > That said, we’re making every effort possible to move this forward.
> >
>
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Chris Hegarty
wrote:
> Simone,
>
> > On 16 Apr 2018, at 18:47, Simone Bordet wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >
> > Out of curiosity, is this code implementing the ReactiveStreams TCK
> > (in its Flow declination) ?
>
> The code should be compliant with the RS TCK.
>
> > I
Hi Simone!
:)
I think James conveyed basically everything I had in mind to respond, but I
felt compelled to address the following:
>Forcing users to implement Subscribers or Processors (because that's
what the API requires, despite having a few utilities that cover the
common cases) is way more
Hi Chuck,
(Disclosure: I'm an RS SIG founding member.)
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Chuck Davis wrote:
> Hi James:
>
> Thanks for your response and the information in your (and other)
> blog(s). I haven't had time to learn all the new features of jdk9 yet
> so a look at Flow was interestin
Sidenote: a byte is an 8-bit buffer chunk.
:-)
--
Cheers,
√
On Dec 7, 2017 01:19, "James Roper" wrote:
> On 7 December 2017 at 06:58, David Lloyd wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Chris Hegarty
>> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>> > The primary motivation for the use byte buffers, as des
Thanks for those clarifcations, Chris, I really appreciate it!
--
Cheers,
√
On Dec 6, 2017 13:31, "Chris Hegarty" wrote:
> Viktor,
>
> I would like to address your first comment only, as your question is
> directed to someone else.
>
> > On 6 Dec 2017
Hi David,
I think you raise some valid concerns, particularly with the byte buffer
pools.
That said, I'm interested in knowing whether your concerns extend to choice
of using the JDK9 Flow API for handling asynchronous IO?
Cheers,
√
(Adding my colleague, James Roper, to the conversation)
On De
