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:

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 <> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Mario Carbajal
<> 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.


> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list