stevedlawrence commented on a change in pull request #12: Revised daffodil-io
module to require passing in a FormatInfo object.
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/pull/12#discussion_r158032054
##########
File path:
daffodil-io/src/main/scala/edu/illinois/ncsa/daffodil/io/DirectOrBufferedDataOutputStream.scala
##########
@@ -704,23 +724,27 @@ object DirectOrBufferedDataOutputStream {
* Delivers the bits of bufDOS into directDOS's output stream. Deals with
the possibility that
* the directDOS ends with a fragment byte, or the bufDOS does, or both.
*/
- private def deliverBufferContent(directDOS:
DirectOrBufferedDataOutputStream, bufDOS: DirectOrBufferedDataOutputStream,
finfo: FormatInfo) {
+ private def deliverBufferContent(directDOS: DirectOrBufferedDataOutputStream,
+ bufDOS: DirectOrBufferedDataOutputStream,
+ finfo: FormatInfo) {
Assert.invariant(bufDOS.isBuffering)
Assert.invariant(!directDOS.isBuffering)
val ba = bufDOS.bufferingJOS.getBuf
val bufferNBits = bufDOS.relBitPos0b // don't have to subtract a starting
offset. It's always zero in buffered case.
- if (finfo.bitOrder ne directDOS.cst.priorBitOrder) {
- if (!directDOS.isEndOnByteBoundary) {
+ val finfoBitOrder = finfo.bitOrder // bit order we are supposed to write
with
+ val priorBitOrder = directDOS.cst.priorBitOrder // bit order that the
directDOS has.
Review comment:
Should this just be directDOS.cst.bitOrder rather than
directDOS.cst.priorBitOrder? So as to compare against current bitOrder of the
direct DOS? Or maybe directDOS.cst.priorBitOrder should be the same as
directDOS.cst.bitOrder at this point and it doesn't matter?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
With regards,
Apache Git Services
