l0rinc

> So we are prioritising the jetty 10 branch for major work. Unfortunately we need JDK 8 compatibility - is it possible to backport the buffer usage optimizations to 9.x?

Hey @leonard84, would it make sense for me to rebase this PR or should we close it?

As I detailed my arguments in https://github.com/spockframework/spock/pull/525#issuecomment-165036759 already, since parameters were thought to be interchangeable (there were even wrong tests, asserting it), but weren't in reality (`int a, int b`...

@Fuud, I understood what the intention was, but it's the exact thing I prohibited in my PR, because I consider it confusing.

Please take a look at https://github.com/spockframework/spock/pull/525/files#diff-eb35d0e75f7f2a418c977d88fde43275R97, where I have data provider parameters and type specifying parameters mixed up. Wouldn't you find it confusing, if one data provider param would be...

Sorry, I really don't know what the advantage of > byte[] encrypted, byte[] key, byte[] expectedDecrypted vs > expectedDecrypted | key | encrypted is. Why not order them the same...

This would be useful for IDE and Gradle runs, e.g. we could `assume` based on the current method name (with JUnit name rule and an assumption that skips the test...

We're storing it in the db and getting back a byte array - would be great to be able to avoid the intermediary UUID object and convert from `byte[]` to...

@smecsia ?

You mean compile it from https://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/jmh? No, used the version from the plugin.