Hi, 2016-09-14 14:37 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > > On 13/09/2016 19:07, Violeta Georgieva wrote: > > 2016-08-30 15:35 GMT+03:00 Violeta Georgieva <miles...@gmail.com>: > > <snip/> > > >> I introduced CoyoteOutputStream.write(ByteBuffer) it uses new methods > >> with ByteBuffer instead of ByteChunk. > >> Next step is to replace ByteChunk/CharChunk usage in CoyoteOutputStream > >> with ByteBuffer/CharBuffer thus I will switch to the new methods and all > >> CoyoteOutputStream.write method will use them. > >> > > > > I would like to back port these changes to Tomcat 8.5 if you do not have > > any concerns. > > +0.5 > > I'm a little concerned about destabilising 8.5.x but the CI system looks > to be doing a good job of catching problems.
In addition to the Tomcat test suite I executed many combinations of performance tests and I do not experience any stability or performance problems with the new code. > Generally, I like the direction this is heading in. Reducing copying > should improve performance but the impact of that doesn't seem to be > noticeable so far. I do wonder why. Time to add some performance testing > to my TODO list I think. Yes I reduced the copy operations, but there is still copy operation when the socket write buffer is not empty. > Currently, there are essentially two code paths for read and write. > > 1. Original. User facing API uses byte[]. byte[] retained all the way to > the SocketWrapper where it is copied to ByteBuffer. The byte[] is wrapped to a ByteBuffer in order to use the new API and when possible copy is skipped. org.apache.catalina.connector.OutputBuffer is working with ByteBuffer after my changes. > 2. New. User facing API uses ByteBuffer. ByteBuffer retained all the way > to to the SocketWrapper where it is used if possible or copied to > another ByteBuffer if not. > > I haven't explored this at all so far, but my initial impression is that > a lot of duplicated functionality could be removed if the original code > path copied to a ByteBuffer earlier. Yes my next step is to deprecate and remove the duplicated functionality as it is not used as I mentioned above. Regards, Violeta > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org >
