This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
remm pushed a commit to branch master
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
new a9acf2e Remove Connector refactoring
a9acf2e is
2015-05-04 21:54 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> Looking some time further ahead where NIO2 is as stable as NIO and there
> is an OpenSSL option for SSL/TLS with NIO2 I don't see any advantages of
> NIO or APR/native over NIO2 which raises the possibility - at that point
> - of just having NIO2.
>
> At
On 02/05/2015 21:52, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2015-05-01 19:28 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>> On 01/05/2015 15:03, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>>> 2015-05-01 11:55 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>
So, should we drop one of NIO or NIO2 in Tomcat 9? If not, why not? If
yes, which one?
I volunte
2015-05-01 19:28 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> On 01/05/2015 15:03, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> > 2015-05-01 11:55 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
> >> So, should we drop one of NIO or NIO2 in Tomcat 9? If not, why not? If
> >> yes, which one?
> >>
> >> I volunteer to help maintain NIO2 for the time being, so I
Mark,
On 5/1/15 1:28 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 01/05/2015 15:03, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>> 2015-05-01 11:55 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>>> So, should we drop one of NIO or NIO2 in Tomcat 9? If not, why not? If
>>> yes, which one?
>>>
>>> I volunteer to help maintain NIO2 for the time being, so I
On 01/05/2015 15:03, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2015-05-01 11:55 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>> So, should we drop one of NIO or NIO2 in Tomcat 9? If not, why not? If
>> yes, which one?
>>
>> I volunteer to help maintain NIO2 for the time being, so I am not in favor
> of removing it at the moment. Unfort
2015-05-01 11:55 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> 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 th
On 01/05/2015 14:02, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 01/05/2015 13:42, Jess Holle wrote:
>> Naively, looking at the Tomcat documentation and note the comparison
>> table there makes it appear that:
>>
>> 1. NIO2 offers everything NIO does
>> 2. NIO cannot offer true blocking IO, whereas NIO2 can
>>
>> If t
On 01/05/2015 13:42, Jess Holle wrote:
> Naively, looking at the Tomcat documentation and note the comparison
> table there makes it appear that:
>
> 1. NIO2 offers everything NIO does
> 2. NIO cannot offer true blocking IO, whereas NIO2 can
>
> If that's not true, then the documentation should b
Naively, looking at the Tomcat documentation and note the comparison
table there makes it appear that:
1. NIO2 offers everything NIO does
2. NIO cannot offer true blocking IO, whereas NIO2 can
If that's not true, then the documentation should be updated at least
And, of course, NIO2 just s
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
As I work through the SSL changes, I've been thinking about the
remaining differences between the connectors and in a couple of cases
I've started to wonder if some of the features should be retained in
Tomcat 9.
First on my list is the OOM parachute. The feature reserves a block of
memory and the
2015-01-15 13:21 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> Thanks for the pointer. That explains what I was seeing. I had
> maxKeepAliveRequests at the default so the delay was impacting the
> results. Ignore the delay and the 8.0.x vs. 9.0.x results are comparable.
>
> I'll take a look and see if I can figure ou
On 15/01/2015 10:25, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2015-01-15 11:11 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>> The latest series of commits is the prep work for merging the
>> Http11InputBuffer implementations. I'll be doing that shortly.
>>
>> The current status is that the tests pass but performance is currently
>>
2015-01-15 11:11 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> The latest series of commits is the prep work for merging the
> Http11InputBuffer implementations. I'll be doing that shortly.
>
> The current status is that the tests pass but performance is currently
> worse for all connectors but especially for NIO2.
>
The latest series of commits is the prep work for merging the
Http11InputBuffer implementations. I'll be doing that shortly.
The current status is that the tests pass but performance is currently
worse for all connectors but especially for NIO2.
Once I complete the InputBuffer merging, I plan on
2014-11-10 18:32 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> > For example, with the NIO2 connector, the code is rather different
> between
> > upgrade and non upgrade, plus it has the possibility of doing gather
> writes
> > (not done in upgrade, only in regular mode; basically in upgrade mode the
> > framework in
On 10/11/2014 17:14, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2014-11-10 17:42 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am about to push the first batch of commits. I started with the
>> upgrade package as that looked like the simplest to tackle first. Rather
>> than a single commit, I'll keep the individual commi
2014-11-10 17:42 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> Hi,
>
> I am about to push the first batch of commits. I started with the
> upgrade package as that looked like the simplest to tackle first. Rather
> than a single commit, I'll keep the individual commits from git. They
> aren't all as clean as I would l
Hi,
I am about to push the first batch of commits. I started with the
upgrade package as that looked like the simplest to tackle first. Rather
than a single commit, I'll keep the individual commits from git. They
aren't all as clean as I would like but it gives a better idea of how I
approached it
20 matches
Mail list logo
