Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-139558-apmail-tomcat-dev-archive=tomcat.apache.org@tomcat.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 090BECD17
	for <apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:44:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 28180 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jun 2013 12:44:35 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@tomcat.apache.org
Received: (qmail 28062 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jun 2013 12:44:34 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@tomcat.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@tomcat.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.tomcat.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tomcat.apache.org
Received: (qmail 28053 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jun 2013 12:44:33 -0000
Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:44:33 +0000
Received: from localhost (HELO [192.168.23.9]) (127.0.0.1)
  (smtp-auth username markt, mechanism plain)
  by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP;
 Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:44:33 +0000
Message-ID: <51CD8528.50804@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:44:24 +0100
From: Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tomcat Developers List <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Subject: Re: WebSocket: to flip or not the ByteBuffer during sendBinary in
 RemoteEndpoint(s)
References: 
 <CAN7Q5XTRWCX=dqcCETg9YGdUEpGUVT3oN6WasUe6VyuWQ+O8JA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAN7Q5XTRWCX=dqcCETg9YGdUEpGUVT3oN6WasUe6VyuWQ+O8JA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 28/06/2013 12:47, Niki Dokovski wrote:
> Hi folks,
> while playing around with tyrus and tomcat implementation of websocket I
> spotted a difference in the way sendBinary is actually implemented. In
> short: tyrus uses bytebuffer.array(), hence there is no change in buffer's
> position while we end with channel write operation that does this. Neither
> the spec nor the javadoc detail that but the result is that one application
> can run perfectly on one of the implementations and could cause problem on
> the other. Shall we contact the EG for clarification on this matter?

No need. The EG has already stated its view (well, the EG lead did and
no-one disagreed)

<quote>
Since the spec does not say anything about re-using ByteBuffers and they
are mutable objects, I would expect the conventional developer practice
to be to use a new one each time.
</quote>

> Opinions?

I agree with the EG lead. Client's should not be making any assumptions
about what the implementation will or won't do with a ByteBuffer.

If you want to argue for a specific behaviour, open an issue against the
spec.

Mark


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org