Hi,
IMHO, it could be really good and efficient if you can process the
message in stream-like manner. But it will work just in case you don't
need whole 2M message to be in memory.
Will streams work for you?
Thanks.
WBR,
Alexey.
On Aug 11, 2008, at 14:57 , Mark Hig wrote:
>
> An expandable byte buffer would only expand when required and could
> be tuned
> to the average message length.
>
> However, back to your original suggestion. this implies that I need to
> intercept a message before handing it off to the Grizzly HTTP engine
> when I
> get a full message, but, it is the Grizzly HTTP engine that tells me
> I have
> a full message.
>
> I am not clear on what you are suggesting as a solution to this
> problem.
> Your previous fragment would not allow me to receive a 2Mb message
> unless I
> reserve 2Mb of memory before hand. This seems really in-efficient
> when the
> majority of messages are going to be approx 4K - 12K.
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/8K-buffer-limit-tp18922684p18925375.html
> Sent from the Grizzly - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>