2015-01-08 14:46 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > On 08/01/2015 13:30, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > 2015-01-08 14:09 GMT+01:00 <ma...@apache.org>: > > > >> Author: markt > >> Date: Thu Jan 8 13:09:47 2015 > >> New Revision: 1650268 > >> > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1650268 > >> Log: > >> Deque<ByteBufferHolder> is a little more complex than List<ByteBuffer> > >> but using the same structure for all connectors will improve code re-use > >> and thereby improve maintainability. > >> > > When I tried that originally in this connector, I ran into corruption > > problems. Maybe it is fine now, but it is worth running the relevant > > testsuite sections repeatedly just in case. > > I've been running the unit tests over this for several days any haven't > seen any issues in this area. I'll keep an eye on the CI system in case > it finds issues that didn't crop up on my dev machine. >
Well, ok, it's kind of obvious the structure itself cannot create corruption. Things back then worked well with a simple list and not this deque. > > > Also it adds an additional layer of objects without providing additional > reuse > I could see, so this structure should be removed IMO rather than > generalized. > > Removing it is on the TODO list along with a handful of other things I > spotted while I was working on this refactoring. Having got to a point > where I had a single Http11OutputBuffer and passing unit tests I wanted > to get it into svn before continuing. > Good. It would be fun to have but is probably dramatically risky if at all possible. Rémy
