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
Viktor,
I would like to address your first comment only, as your question is
directed to someone else.
> On 6 Dec 2017, at 10:01, Viktor Klang wrote:
> ..
> I think you raise some valid concerns, particularly with the byte buffer
> pools.
The conversation got off to a bad start as there was a
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, at 10:01, Viktor Klang wrote:
> > ..
> >
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Viktor,
>
> The reference to byte buffer pools is not relevant here. They were
> introduced as a performance optimization that allowed better reuse of
> byte buffers between the socket channel and the SSL engine, in the
> implementation. That'
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 described above, is
> > to provide maximum flexibility to an implementation to avoid copying
> > and buffering of data.
>
>
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
