<div dir="ltr">Great...thanks for the quick turnaround Stuart!<div><br></div><div>best,</div><div><br></div><div>MTC</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Stuart Douglas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sdouglas@redhat.com" target="_blank">sdouglas@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">In general it should not be an issue, as we use direct byte buffer by<br>
default. If you write a large heap buffer directly to a channel though<br>
you can still be hit by it.<br>
<br>
Stuart<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Matt Clarkson <<a href="mailto:mclarkson@eyeota.com">mclarkson@eyeota.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hello... does anybody here know whether undertow/xnio is exposed to this<br>
> "bug":<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.evanjones.ca/java-bytebuffer-leak.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.evanjones.ca/java-<wbr>bytebuffer-leak.html</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> thanks,<br>
><br>
> MTC<br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> undertow-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org">undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>