SBE VS Netty

I was about to suggest Chronicle, but it looks like they have gone closed-source. The older version is still interesting to look through though. Aeron / Disruptor / SBE are good projects for inspiration as well.

Could you evaluate how it compares with SBE?

The Simple Binary Encoding (SBE) project now includes support for generating Rust code. Generated code produced does not use unsafe and has no dependencies on any other crates.

SBE

Consider a valid protobuf message with such a field. If you can locate the field value bytes, you can write a new value to the same location without breaking the message. It's obviously possible to the same with the varint type too, as long as you don't change the number of bytes - not so practical, but useful for enum field which has a limited set of useful values (usually less than 128).

Pregenerating protobuf messages you want to send and then modifying the bytes in-place before sending is going to give you a nice performance boost over "normal" protobuf serialization. It can be useful if you need to be protobuf compatible, but it's obviously better to use something like SBE - https://github.com/real-logic/simple-binary-encoding

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.