Sherman,
thanks for your answer.
Do you have overseen, that String#getASCIIBytes(..) and
String#getISO8859_1Bytes(..) was only mentioned as *alternative*?
As I agree, adding methods with specific encoding names to API is bad
design, I would prefer method signatures like getBytes(byte[] buf, byte
mask).
This additionally allows 6-bit ASCII de/encoding.
We could additionally provide static constants: MASK_ISO_8859_1,
MASK_ASCII, MASK_ASCII_6BIT.
Imagine, you have very short Strings. Loading/instantiating charset +
de/encoder instances (by name) takes more time than the de/encoding
itself in current implementation. So there should be additional big
performance gain e.g. for CORBA applications.
-Ulf
Am 17.06.2009 04:50, Xueming Shen schrieb:
I would be very hesitated to add methods with specific encoding names,
even these encodings are
VERY important, such as ASCII and ISO8859. Hack a fast path in the
implementation to boost the
performance for some important encodings is something we want to do,
but add specific methods
into the API is totally different thing.
sherman
Ulf Zibis wrote:
Hi Sherman, may be you are interested in this bug:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6826329
-Ulf
