Beside this it also helps to reduce CPU usage as nioBufferCount() is quite expensive when used on CompositeByteBuf which are
nested and contains a lot of components
This ChannelOption allows to tell the DatagramChannel implementation to be active as soon as they are registrated to their EventLoop. This can be used to make it possible to write to a not bound DatagramChannel.
The ChannelOption is marked as @deprecated as I'm looking for a better solution in master which breaks default behaviour with 4.0 branch.
The problem with the old way was that we always set the OP_WRITE when the buffer could not be written
until the write-spin-count was reached. This means that in some cases the channel was still be writable
but we just was not able to write out the data quick enough. For this cases we should better break out the
write loop and schedule a write to be picked up later in the EventLoop, when other tasks was executed.
The OP_WRITE will only be set if a write actual returned 0 which means there is no more room for writing data
and this we need to wait for the os to notify us.
This move less common method patterns to extra methods and so make the nioBuffers() method with most common pattern (backed by one ByteBuffer) small enough for inlining.
This is needed because of otherwise the JDK itself will do an extra ByteBuffer copy with it's own pool implementation. Even worth it will be done
multiple times if the ByteBuffer is always only partial written. With this change the copy is done inside of netty using it's own allocator and
only be done one time in all cases.
Introduce a new interface called MessageSizeEstimator. This can be specific per Channel (via ChannelConfig). The MessageSizeEstimator will be used to estimate for a message that should be written. The default implementation handles ByteBuf, ByteBufHolder and FileRegion. A user is free to plug-in his/her own implementation for different behaviour.
This fixes#1664 and revert also the original commit which was meant to fix it 3b1881b523e61496d9bc50e44927f7b58fa449e6 . The problem with the original commit was that it could delay handlerRemove(..) calls and so mess up the order or forward bytes to late.
