directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From joshua portway <>
Subject Re: [mina] DIRMINA-165 revisited
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:15:28 GMT
thanks for the warning - is anyone actively working on this issue ?
It's important to my project to be able to slice buffers ( actually,  
I have one permanent buffer, with permanent "slice" buffers pointing  
to bits of it and when the contents of the buffer change I send a  
load of network messages - one for each of the slice buffers - this  
avoids any copying or reallocating buffers ).
If no one else is working on this I'll probably give it a go myself,  
but I would appreciate some advice about why it was considered a bad  
idea for view buffer "containers" (mina ByteBuffer) to be pooled -  
can anyone help me out here ?


On 15 Feb 2006, at 20:05, <> wrote:

> I tested my own patch to DIRMINA-165 and I admit that it is very  
> very bad, please don't use it.
> I'm not sure of the why of the bad-working of those classes, but  
> I'm sure that they simply don't work.
> For the reason please wait for the answer of someone else.
> by Federico Bonelli
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Portway" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:43 PM
> Subject: [mina] DIRMINA-165 revisited
>> Hi,
>> I've been looking at the code submitted for this bug (to allow the  
>> creating of read-only buffers and buffer slices) and reading the  
>> comments, and I'm not sure I understand why the submitted patch is  
>> considered "dangerous". Trustin advises that all the methods  
>> assert  that every buffer involved is not pooled, but I'm not sure  
>> why this  should be - presumably, assuming that any derived  
>> buffers maintain a  reference to their parent buffer, the parent  
>> buffer won't be returned  to the pool until all derived buffers  
>> have been released, and  therefore released it in turn. Am I  
>> missing something here ?
>> josh

View raw message