[undertow-dev] WebSockets static sendBinary methods.and PooledByteBuffers

[Stuart Douglas]

Sounds good

Stuart

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 5:43 AM, Mario Carbajal
<mario.e.carbajal at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Stuart, I've made the modifications I mentioned to the
> WebSockets class in my project by creating a copy of it and it's working
> great.
> I'm wondering if it would be possible to have the PooledByteBuffer versions
> added into official undertow source.
>
> Here's a gist of how it looks like:
> https://gist.github.com/anonymous/cbb6004adb1a30d4274622814a69284c
>
> if it makes sense I can make a fork and pull request, also add
> PooledByteBuffer versions for all the send methods.
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Stuart Douglas <sdouglas at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Mario Carbajal
>> <mario.e.carbajal at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > From looking at the source it seems that the WebSockets.sendBinary
>> > methods
>> > that take ByteBuffer will take ownership of the buffer, meaning I
>> > shouldn't
>> > modify (or return it to a pool) after I pass it to these methods. Is
>> > this
>> > correct?
>>
>> Yes, you need to wait for the callback to be called before you can do
>> anything with it.
>>
>> >
>> > Looking at sendInternal, the buffer passed is then wrapped in a dummy
>> > ImmediatePooledByteBuffer. I could make alternative versions of these
>> > sendBinary methods that take PooledByteBuffer. Allowing me to use pooled
>> > buffers.
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> >
>> > Since this functionality is missing it makes me think that there may be
>> > a
>> > reason why it shouldn't be done.
>>
>> Mostly because nobody has asked for it yet.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > undertow-dev mailing list
>> > undertow-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>
>