Closed sebthom closed 4 months ago
No, it won't solve the issue but it allows for processing of larger messages without getting an OOM.
I'll leave it open for now for others to have a look. But assuming no dissenting views it can be merged soonish.
Thanks to @pisv we have a positive review - even better than simply no dissenting views! Waiting to hear from @sebthom if this commit or #817 should be submitted first (as I assume some amount of merging conflict resolution may be required)
I'll leave it open for now for others to have a look. But assuming no dissenting views it can be merged soonish.
Thanks to @pisv we have a positive review - even better than simply no dissenting views! Waiting to hear from @sebthom if this commit or #817 should be submitted first (as I assume some amount of merging conflict resolution may be required)
Rebasing this PR is easier, so I would prefer if #817 gets merged first.
Thanks @sebthom - I'll hold off until @pisv reviews #817
@pisv feel free to submit #817 if you approve (and #816 once it is rebased)
This can reduce the likeliness of OOMs when dealing with large response messages from LS servers. See discussion at https://github.com/eclipse-lsp4j/lsp4j/issues/815