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(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Mario Carbajal
<mario.e.carbajal(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev