Interesting. Is the non-blocking alternative to change the "while..." to
"if (!_eof)"? There's no problem with writing _buffer when hasRemaining()
is true, is there?
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
1068 // Read from stream until buffer full or EOF
1069 _buffer.clear();
1070 while (_buffer.hasRemaining() && !_eof)
1071 _eof = (_in.read(_buffer)) < 0;
That pattern for reading from the stream only works for blocking IO. If
you are using a non blocking channel this will basically wait in a busy
loop till data becomes available.
Stuart
Jim Crossley wrote:
> Thanks, Jason. To me, the Jetty code looks like it's doing pretty much
> what Stuart told me to do. Can you tell me which part exactly assumes
> the blocking behavior so I can relay that to the Pedestal guys?
>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Jason T. Greene <jgreene(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:jgreene@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 16, 2014, at 8:19 PM, Jim Crossley <jim(a)crossleys.org
> <mailto:jim@crossleys.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Is this an async or a blocking transfer? The problem with
> > > ReadableByteChannel is that it can be a blocking channel, and as
> a
> > > result reading from it in the IO thread will result in crappy
> > > performance.
> >
> > Because of the way they're using it (with Clojure's core.async
> library)
> > I expect the transfer to be async, but I'll verify that with them.
>
> I just looked at the Jetty impl, and the code assumes blocking
> behavior with that method. Anything using it will be blocking reads
> with non blocking writes.
>
>
>