Next up on my list is the NIO2 connector. NIO and APR/native both use a polling approach to non-blocking I/O. You add the socket to the poller, tell it what operation (read/write) you want to perform and then you wait for the poller to tell you the socket is ready to perform that operation.
NIO2 uses an asynchronous approach to non-blocking I/O. You perform the read/write and then wait to be told it has finished via either a Future or a CompletionHandler. Servlet 3.1 non-blocking I/O is closest to the polling style (you get a callback when you are allowed to read/write). WebSocket non-blocking I/O uses the asynchronous style. In short, regardless of the underlying approach to non-blocking I/O, we have to support JavaEE APIs that use both styles. Therefore there is no 'obvious' advantage for either NIO or NIO2. As far as I can tell, the performance of NIO and NIO2 are comparable. That raises the question why do we need both NIO and NIO2? And I don't have an answer to that. If I had to pick one, I'd pick NIO because: - it has been around longer and is more stable - it uses the same style as APR/native which may allow further refactoring to reduce duplication. So, should we drop one of NIO or NIO2 in Tomcat 9? If not, why not? If yes, which one? Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
