On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 28/06/2013 12:47, Niki Dokovski wrote: > > Hi folks, > > while playing around with tyrus and tomcat implementation of websocket I > > spotted a difference in the way sendBinary is actually implemented. In > > short: tyrus uses bytebuffer.array(), hence there is no change in > buffer's > > position while we end with channel write operation that does this. > Neither > > the spec nor the javadoc detail that but the result is that one > application > > can run perfectly on one of the implementations and could cause problem > on > > the other. Shall we contact the EG for clarification on this matter? > > No need. The EG has already stated its view (well, the EG lead did and > no-one disagreed) > > <quote> > Since the spec does not say anything about re-using ByteBuffers and they > are mutable objects, I would expect the conventional developer practice > to be to use a new one each time. > </quote> > Thanks for sharing. This is an assumption about what is "conventional developer practice" :) > > > Opinions? > > I agree with the EG lead. Client's should not be making any assumptions > about what the implementation will or won't do with a ByteBuffer. > > If you want to argue for a specific behaviour, open an issue against the > spec. > > I'll ask for a clarification and let's see. The effect is that because of this we can lose portability. > Mark > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
