Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 52533 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2006 15:56:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Jan 2006 15:56:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 31783 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2006 15:56:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 31743 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2006 15:56:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 31732 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jan 2006 15:56:04 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [192.87.106.226] (HELO ajax.apache.org) (192.87.106.226) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:56:04 -0800 Received: from ajax.apache.org (ajax.apache.org [127.0.0.1]) by ajax.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F71CB for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:55:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <971225372.1137686143524.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:55:43 +0100 (CET) From: "Federico Bonelli (JIRA)" To: dev@directory.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (DIRMINA-165) Easy and performant copy of the ByteBuffer In-Reply-To: <1737397027.1137155780918.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-165?page=comments#action_12363261 ] Federico Bonelli commented on DIRMINA-165: ------------------------------------------ I agree that buffers need all the duplicate-like methods, but what about pooling them? If all the buffers copied _and the parent too_ have to be unpooled, it may increase a lot the time of allocation for direct buffers, especially in case of a massive use of copies that could be very light for CPU. It is certainly better than all the copies have pooled = false, and could not be changed, but the parent can be pooled, I think, after that all the copies have been released. WDYT? > Easy and performant copy of the ByteBuffer > ------------------------------------------ > > Key: DIRMINA-165 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-165 > Project: Directory MINA > Type: Improvement > Versions: 0.9, 0.8.2, 0.8.1, 0.8 > Reporter: Federico Bonelli > Priority: Minor > Attachments: ByteBuffer.java, HubServer_broadCastTCPmessages.zip > > Until now if you wish to broadcast a message you must create by your own the bytebuffer copies, it would be better to provide a ByteBuffer.asReadOnly() method that create a copy that share the data with the original ByteBuffer -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira