Added writeVoidPromise, writeAndFlushVoidPromise to ChannelGroup - Issue #3127

[Mr00Anderson]

Added writeVoidPromise, writeAndFlushVoidPromise methods to ChannelGroup and DefaultChannelGroup

Motivation:

Reduce Objects and GC by option. Give the option to developers to be able to choose to Channel.voidPromise() when making group writes. This will reduce object creation for ChannelGroup writes and writeAndFlush's by adding additional methods which add the Channel.voidPromise() into the Channel.write() portion of the method.

Modifications:

ChannelGroup.class - Added new methods to the interface along with documentation to the regular method and addition documentation specificly the purpose of the new methods.

ChannelGroupFuture writeVoidPromise(Object message);
ChannelGroupFuture writeAndFlushVoidPromise(Object message);
ChannelGroupFuture writeVoidPromise(Object message, ChannelMatcher matcher);
ChannelGroupFuture writeAndFlushVoidPromise(Object message, ChannelMatcher matcher);.

DefaultChannelGroup.class - Now implements these new interface methods in the utilizing the existing write and writeAndFlush method by coping them and then adding Channel.voidPromise() to the two methods that actually have the write logic.

public ChannelGroupFuture writeVoidPromise(Object message);
public ChannelGroupFuture writeAndFlushVoidPromise(Object message);
public ChannelGroupFuture writeVoidPromise(Object message, ChannelMatcher matcher);
public ChannelGroupFuture writeAndFlushVoidPromise(Object message, ChannelMatcher matcher);

Result:

Netty.io API users will now be able to use DefaultChannelGroup.writeVoidPromise(); and DefaultChannelGroup.writeAndFlushVoidPromise();, and be able to save on object creation and GC when not caring about the FuturePromise.

closes #3127

[Mr00Anderson]

@normanmaurer if i need to change the method naming let me know.

[normanmaurer]

@Underbalanced let me think about it a bit.

[normanmaurer]

@trustin WDYT ?

[trustin]

Sounds like a reasonable request. However, the method names need rework.
Obviously we do not write 'void promise' :-)

How about writeWithVoidPromise?

[Mr00Anderson]

Ha. I am new to community projects contributions. I also am terrible with
wording as I find my self constantly correcting verbiages in my Java
Libraries!

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Trustin Lee notifications@github.com
wrote:

Sounds like a reasonable request. However, the method names need rework.
Obviously we do not write 'void promise' :-)

How about writeWithVoidPromise?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4478 (comment)

[trustin]

@Underbalanced No worries! Thanks a lot for proposing a great idea. :-)

[normanmaurer]

Let me take over this with some slightly changes. @Underbalanced thanks for the idea!