On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 21:58:02 GMT, Brian Burkhalter <b...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> That would be possible. It would help in cases where a large Reader is read >> into one or several relatively small off-heap CharBuffers, requiring >> multiple #read calls. This can only be done when the caller is able to work >> with only a partial input. I don't know how common this case is. >> >> We could re-purpose #skipBuffer, it has the same maximum size (8192) but >> determined by a different constant (#maxSkipBufferSize instead of >> #TRANSFER_BUFFER_SIZE). That would likely require it to be renamed and maybe >> we should even remove #maxSkipBufferSize. We could also do the reallocation >> and growing similar as is currently done in #skip. > > Perhaps a static final `WORK_BUFFER_SIZE` could be added with value 8192 and > `maxSkipBufferSize` and `TRANSFER_BUFFER_SIZE` replaced with that? Then > `skipBuffer` could be renamed to `workBuffer` and used in both > `read(CharBuffer)` and `skip(long)`. That shouldn't be a problem as both uses > are in synchronized blocks. Also I suggest putting the declaration of > `workBuffer` just below that of `lock` instead of lower down the file where > `skipBuffer` is. > > Lastly you mentioned C-style array declarations like `char buf[]`. As there > are only four of these in the file it might be good to just go ahead and > change them, I don't think that adds much noise or risk. Done. I left #transferTo(Writer) untouched for now. Firstly it is not already behind a synchronized. Secondly it writes so there is no need for repeated calls. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1915
