On 10/24/11 10:23 AM, Rajiv Mordani wrote:
> Trying to close on this. Since there wasn't a strong preference to
> use the NIO2 style API or the proposed API, I would like to move
> forward with the proposal with some of the changes
> that were suggested to the API. We can put a note in the spec asking
> for feedback when we
> do an early draft to get the community input.
>
> The changes that I have on the list to the proposal as of now are -
>
> * try and move the methods from NIOInputSource and NIOOutputSink to
> ServletInputStream and ServletOutputStream
>
In this case, will we have ServletReader and ServletWriter classes, too?
(Note that we have "BufferedReader getReader()" in ServletRequest.)
Or will we only have NIO streams/bytes related API as in JDK?
Shing Wai Chan
>
> * Rename any new NIOxxx API to AsyncIOxxx (although technically it
> really isn't Async but more non-blocking)
>
> Thanks
>
> - Rajiv
>> On 15 September 2011 18:00, Remy Maucherat<rmaucher_at_redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I don't quite understand why this is a good design over the usual
>>> blocking IO.
>> I don't represent that NIO.2 style is a better design, just that it is
>> the approach taken by java 7 and we should at least evaluate it.
>> The example I gave is definitely not good design - nor should it be
>> taken as representative of how NIO.2 style apis are used. It was just
>> a simple example.
>>
>> Perhaps we could get somebody from the NIO.2 team to give us a
>> presentation of why they did their API that way and we could then see
>> if the reasons they give are applicable to servlet API.