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

[Mario Carbajal]

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/undertow-dev/attachments/20170201/f3ca5113/attachment.html