On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Niki Dokovski <nick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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. > https://java.net/jira/browse/WEBSOCKET_SPEC-209 > > > >> Mark >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org >> >> >
