On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 10:23 -0700, 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
> * Rename any new NIOxxx API to AsyncIOxxx (although technically
> it really isn't Async but more non-blocking)
That sounds reasonable. Avoiding additional interfaces that are not so
useful is a good idea, and the performance of the design should be
optimal.
--
Remy Maucherat <rmaucher_at_redhat.com>
Red Hat Inc