use approved SocketAddress API instead of direct internal access

[wfurt]

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

Author:	wfurt
Assignees:	wfurt
Labels:	area-System.Net.Sockets
Milestone:	-

[stephentoub]

I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

I doubt it. That'd increase the size of the object, and the cost of constructing a Memory is minimal. Feel free to measure, though I expect it's entirely within the noise.

[wfurt]

this is final stepping stone. Please take another look @stephentoub

[stephentoub]

We can do it later if you'd prefer, but these files should also move out of common into the appropriate library folder

[wfurt]

yes, I was thinking about SocketAddress.cs as well once the changes are over. Probably separate PR with just moves/renames.

[wfurt]

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

Author:	wfurt
Assignees:	wfurt
Labels:	area-System.Net.Sockets
Milestone:	-

[stephentoub]

I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

I doubt it. That'd increase the size of the object, and the cost of constructing a Memory is minimal. Feel free to measure, though I expect it's entirely within the noise.

[wfurt]

this is final stepping stone. Please take another look @stephentoub

[stephentoub]

We can do it later if you'd prefer, but these files should also move out of common into the appropriate library folder

[wfurt]

yes, I was thinking about SocketAddress.cs as well once the changes are over. Probably separate PR with just moves/renames.

[wfurt]

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

Author:	wfurt
Assignees:	wfurt
Labels:	area-System.Net.Sockets
Milestone:	-

[stephentoub]

I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

I doubt it. That'd increase the size of the object, and the cost of constructing a Memory is minimal. Feel free to measure, though I expect it's entirely within the noise.

[wfurt]

this is final stepping stone. Please take another look @stephentoub

[stephentoub]

We can do it later if you'd prefer, but these files should also move out of common into the appropriate library folder

[wfurt]

yes, I was thinking about SocketAddress.cs as well once the changes are over. Probably separate PR with just moves/renames.

[wfurt]

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

Author:	wfurt
Assignees:	wfurt
Labels:	area-System.Net.Sockets
Milestone:	-

[stephentoub]

I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

I doubt it. That'd increase the size of the object, and the cost of constructing a Memory is minimal. Feel free to measure, though I expect it's entirely within the noise.

[wfurt]

this is final stepping stone. Please take another look @stephentoub

[stephentoub]

We can do it later if you'd prefer, but these files should also move out of common into the appropriate library folder

[wfurt]

yes, I was thinking about SocketAddress.cs as well once the changes are over. Probably separate PR with just moves/renames.

[wfurt]

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

Author:	wfurt
Assignees:	wfurt
Labels:	area-System.Net.Sockets
Milestone:	-

[stephentoub]

I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

I doubt it. That'd increase the size of the object, and the cost of constructing a Memory is minimal. Feel free to measure, though I expect it's entirely within the noise.

[wfurt]

this is final stepping stone. Please take another look @stephentoub

[stephentoub]

We can do it later if you'd prefer, but these files should also move out of common into the appropriate library folder

[wfurt]

yes, I was thinking about SocketAddress.cs as well once the changes are over. Probably separate PR with just moves/renames.

[wfurt]

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

Author:	wfurt
Assignees:	wfurt
Labels:	area-System.Net.Sockets
Milestone:	-

[stephentoub]

I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

I doubt it. That'd increase the size of the object, and the cost of constructing a Memory is minimal. Feel free to measure, though I expect it's entirely within the noise.

[wfurt]

this is final stepping stone. Please take another look @stephentoub

[stephentoub]

We can do it later if you'd prefer, but these files should also move out of common into the appropriate library folder

[wfurt]

yes, I was thinking about SocketAddress.cs as well once the changes are over. Probably separate PR with just moves/renames.

[wfurt]

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

Author:	wfurt
Assignees:	wfurt
Labels:	area-System.Net.Sockets
Milestone:	-

[stephentoub]

I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

I doubt it. That'd increase the size of the object, and the cost of constructing a Memory is minimal. Feel free to measure, though I expect it's entirely within the noise.

[wfurt]

this is final stepping stone. Please take another look @stephentoub

[stephentoub]

We can do it later if you'd prefer, but these files should also move out of common into the appropriate library folder

[wfurt]

yes, I was thinking about SocketAddress.cs as well once the changes are over. Probably separate PR with just moves/renames.

[wfurt]

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

This is cleanup to avoid using SocketAddress internals directly.
Avoids allocation for local and remote address in typical case.

With all the external access to internal array gone, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

privateMemory<byte>_buffer=newMemory<byte>(newbyte[Size]);

contributes to #30797
follow-up on #88970

Author:	wfurt
Assignees:	wfurt
Labels:	area-System.Net.Sockets
Milestone:	-

[stephentoub]

I'm wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like this @stephentoub to avoid creation of the memory on each access.

I doubt it. That'd increase the size of the object, and the cost of constructing a Memory is minimal. Feel free to measure, though I expect it's entirely within the noise.

[wfurt]

this is final stepping stone. Please take another look @stephentoub

[stephentoub]

We can do it later if you'd prefer, but these files should also move out of common into the appropriate library folder

[wfurt]

yes, I was thinking about SocketAddress.cs as well once the changes are over. Probably separate PR with just moves/renames.