OkHttp VS Netty

We will use Square’s Mock Webserver to spin up a mock server which we can use to simulate real api's request to the get coffee endpoint.

OkHttp Documentation

mockwebserver -> https://github.com/square/okhttp/tree/master/mockwebserver

I searched in the OkHttp GitHub project for an advice on which values may be suitable for Android apps nowadays but found no answers (only this old issue which does not help). Since we share a single OkHttp client Singleton for all our retrofit APIs and even Coil, I wonder if the default 5 maxRequestsPerHost is really enough.

You can technically add a Content-Length header for each part. It's not forbidden by the RFC, but nor is it common. It caused [problems](https://github.com/square/okhttp/issues/2138) for OkHttp, and they eventually removed it. Might be fine for internal-only use, though.

Boundaries are a lot like UUIDs, and rely on the same logic. When generating random data, once you have enough bits, the odds are against that sequence of bits ever having been generated before in the universe.

Lets be specific. This is the gradle build file for Squares okhttp client library. How exactly would your bld tool "predict" or "help" with all the parameters needed? There is no need to be defensive. Replace those large build files with your own, show where your approach is better and then understanding will lead to better solutions.

And adding to that: The asynchttpclient library is just a thin wrapper around OkHttp3, so it might be easier to just go with that instead: https://square.github.io/okhttp/

Retrofit in combination with OkHttp for fetching data from server (which hopefully already exists)

OkHttp

Code of netty is here and using following library

We use Netty (https://netty.io/) as the source of the MQTT communication, and we build the MQTT features the MQTT broker should support ourselves on top of that.

In this space, we also have the somewhat related term blocking. Java's NIO library is one well-known non-blocking tool used for managing multiple tasks on a single Java thread. When listening to sockets, most of the time a thread is just blocked, doing nothing until it receives some data. So, it's efficient to use a single thread for monitoring many sockets, to increase the likelihood of the thread having some actual work to do. The Selector API does this but is notoriously challenging to program well. Instead, developers use frameworks like Netty which abstract some of NIO's complexity and layer on some best practices.

DirectByteBuffer exhibits an intriguing behavior: it deallocates its backing memory during the finalization process, which occurs after garbage collection (GC) cycles. This poses an issue if your system is conservative with on-heap allocations, leading to infrequent GC cycles. In such cases, there could be a significant delay between the time the memory becomes unreferenced and when it is actually deallocated. This behavior could, in some respects, mimic a memory leak.

This is why some libraries hacks into DirectByteBuffer to deallocate memory explicitly, bypassing the finalizer altogether. For instance, the Netty library has implemented such a workaround, see Netty as an [example](https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/795db4a866401aa172757b95...).

Apologies replying to myself, but Netty, which underpins many of the popular Java backend frameworks, see backward compatibility as more important than supporting green threads.

https://github.com/netty/netty/issues/12816

It'll be interesting to see who (if anyone) picks up Netty's mantle in the Project Loom world.

Looks fairly recent so I'm glad I had a pre oct22 build https://github.com/netty/netty/issues/12737

This is better? https://github.com/netty/netty/blob/4.1/pom.xml

Given the fact that Lettuce is built with Netty, we also immediately noticed quite an impact on the initialization time (cold start) of our lambda function. Netty is really fast while executing, but takes a bit of time to initialize. The new Lambda Snapstart functionality might help with that.