mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steven Shaw" <stes...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: To keep direct buffer support or not
Date Sat, 09 Dec 2006 21:45:46 GMT
On 08/12/06, Trustin Lee <trustin@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.nabble.com/Is-MINA-ByteBuffer-pool-of-dubious-value--tf2652301.html#a7401135),
> we agreed on removing acquire() / release() methods and pooling stuff.  I
> think it's a great idea, but what do we do now with direct buffers?  They
> take longer to allocate / deallocate, and that was why we introduced pooling
> feature.  Are we just abandoning direct buffers and let users manage the
> buffer in their own way?

If you remove direct buffer support how can performance be measured if
say jdk7 has better direct buffers? What happens when the jdk gets
some kind of aio? It is likely use direct buffers.

What do you gain by deleting some existing code? Is that code an
impediment to other progress? Why not just make the default heap
allocated ByteBuffers (i.e. no pooling)?

Mime
View raw message