2016-10-27 0:44 GMT+03:00 Rémy Maucherat <r...@apache.org>:
>
> 2016-10-26 20:45 GMT+02:00 Violeta Georgieva <miles...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Remy,
> >
> > 2016-10-25 1:49 GMT+03:00 Rémy Maucherat <r...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > 2016-10-24 20:18 GMT+02:00 Violeta Georgieva <miles...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > There are no issues reported for the refactored functionality
available
> > in
> > > > 9.0.0.M11.
> > > > I think it is safe to back port the changes for the next 8.5
release.
> > > > Do you see any issues?
> > > >
> > > > Ok, so it probably works. I suppose it's up to me, at some point, to
> > try
> > > to improve whatever I would like to improve (for example, it lost API
> > > symmetry - normally, read/write APIs are the same, not the case here
-,
> > and
> > > it's not very GC friendly).
> >
> > Regarding API symmetry: for the read API I cannot use ByteBuffer
directly
> > as parameter so the option is to change the write API to use
> > ApplicationBufferHandler.
> > This change can be done easily but the drawback is that one additional
> > wrapper object will be created for each Response object.
> > If you are OK with this I can make it.
> >
>
> No. Since my own async scatter/gather didn't provide any benefits, unless
> something unexpected occurs I'll give up on that and could try to rework
> this at some point.

So are you OK to have in Tomcat 8.5 the read/write with ByteBuffer in
CoyoteInputStream/CoyoteOutputStream?
The main purpose for this refactoring was to introduce them without
regression in the performance.
I would like to have these APIs in Tomcat 8.5.

Thanks,
Violeta

> >
> > Let me know if you have other requirements for this change so that I can
> > implement them and after that backport the change in Tomcat 8.5.
> >
> > I will double check my tests again for GC issues. Do you have some
> > observations or concrete concerns so I can focus on them?
> >
> > It does duplicate ByteBuffers, that creates some objects. it doesn't
have
> any measurable impact on performance however since I didn't notice
anything.
>
> Rémy

Reply via email to