[muscle] Re: Java NIO bugs...
- From: jeremyf <jfriesne@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: muscle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:31:40 -0700
Thanks Bryan; I’ve merged your changes in to my SVN repository and will push
them out to github as part of the next MUSCLE release.
-Jeremy
On Sep 3, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Bryan Varner <bryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It would probably be easier (at least for me) if I fork
> https://github.com/jfriesne/muscle and send you a pull request on github. :-)
>
>
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Jeremy Friesner <jfriesne@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bryan,
>>
>> Just email me a .zip with the updated file(s) and I'll integrate it in for
>> the next release.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Jeremy
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Bryan Varner <bryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I recently upgraded some very old java MUSCLE code to the interfaces using
>>> the Java NIO byte buffers, and found some unexpected results.
>>>
>>> Specifically, I was getting IOExceptions as if the remote end of the
>>> connection had hung-up. After a lot of sleuthing, I found that the receive
>>> buffer position wasn’t being set prior to throwing a NotEnoughDataException
>>> during message unflattening, which was leaving the buffer in an
>>> inconsistent state and basically reading random bits into bytes for message
>>> length and encoding…
>>>
>>> I ran across the root of the problem after noticing that the byte buffers
>>> were being allocated per message received invocation, and were using
>>> indirect byte buffers…
>>>
>>> I have a copy of the source with the issue fixed as well as a set of
>>> changes which changes the scope of the byte buffer, allocated it as direct,
>>> and dramatically reduced the amount of work the GC was doing in Java to
>>> clean up all those byte buffer allocations.
>>>
>>> What’s the process for submitting patches these days? :-)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Bryan
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
