I've commited the Async HTTP. So now it's available on trunk and later
Jeanfrancois will release Grizzly 1.9 rc2 so everyone will be able to
test it.
You can find how to enable Async HTTP in previous mails of this thread.
Jeanfrancois, pls. see answers on "inlined" bellow :)
Thanks.
WBR,
Alexey.
>>>>
>>>> * Output buffer.
>>>> @@ -54,16 +65,60 @@
>>>> * * @author Jean-Francois Arcand
>>>> * @author Scott Oaks
>>>> + * @author Alexey Stashok
>>>> */
>>>> -public class SocketChannelOutputBuffer extends
>>>> InternalOutputBuffer{
>>>> +public class SocketChannelOutputBuffer extends
>>>> InternalOutputBuffer {
>>>> + private static Logger logger = SelectorThread.logger();
>>>> + private static final int DEFAULT_BUFFER_POOL_SIZE = 16384;
>>>> +
>>>> + private static int maxBufferPoolSize =
>>>> DEFAULT_BUFFER_POOL_SIZE;
>>>> +
>>>> /**
>>>> + * ByteBuffer pool to be used with async write
>>>> + */
>>>> + private static Queue<ByteBuffer> bufferPool =
>>>> + new ArrayBlockingQueue<ByteBuffer>(maxBufferPoolSize);
>>>
>>> Can you instead have a pool per instance, and limit the size of
>>> the pool based on the number of maxThreads? Take a look at AIO
>>>
>>> http-aio/src/main/java/com/sun/grizzly/aio/http/
>>> AsyncSocketChannelOutputBuffer.java
>>>
>>> there I avoid synchronized on a single queue.
Per instance - yes we can. It will probably improve the perf, but
increase memory consumption, so it's trade off here.
As for limit size, based on max threads number - not sure it's right
solution. These values are completely independent, or I missed
something?
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + + /**
>>>> + * Sets the underlying selection key of the output channel.
>>>> + * @param selectionKey the underlying selection key of the
>>>> output channel.
>>>> + */
>>>> + public void setSelectionKey(SelectionKey selectionKey) {
>>>> + this.selectionKey = selectionKey;
>>>> + channel = selectionKey.channel();
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> setChannel() is always invoked by DefaultProcessorTask
Now it invokes setSelectionKey(), cause we need it for async write.
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -278,4 +507,20 @@
>>>> public static void setMaxBufferedBytes(int aMaxBufferedBytes) {
>>>> maxBufferedBytes = aMaxBufferedBytes;
>>>> }
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>>> + public static void setMaxBufferPoolSize(int size) {
>>>> + int poolSize = (size >= 0) ? size :
>>>> DEFAULT_BUFFER_POOL_SIZE;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (maxBufferPoolSize == poolSize) return;
>>>> + + maxBufferPoolSize = poolSize;
>>>> +
>>>> + bufferPool = new
>>>> ArrayBlockingQueue<ByteBuffer>(maxBufferPoolSize);
>>>> }
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Hum I don't like set method that does works :-) Can we change the
>>> name to ajustMaxBufferPoolSize()?
Hmm, and what is the difference? :))