That's a good question. I think we should add a ServletReader and
ServletWriter. What do others think?
- Rajiv
On 10/24/2011 11:12 AM, Shing Wai Chan wrote:
> 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.
>