On 12/13/06, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems this is another RI's dark corner. The above tests look like
standard usage patterns for the position() method. Is there something
specific about them? I wonder how Sun can release the code that is
completely broken?
I dunno. :-)
This is strange.
Regards,
2006/12/13, Oleg Khaschansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > BTW, what does the another version
> > of position() method - position(Blob pattern, long start) - return in
> > these cases?
> I tried the following:
> byte[] buf = { 1,3,9,1,1,3,2,2,4,2,3,9,3,3 };
> SerialBlob blob = new SerialBlob(buf);
>
> byte[] pattern = new byte[] { 1,2,3 };
> SerialBlob blob2 = new SerialBlob(pattern);
> long pos = blob.position(blob2, 1);
> System.out.println(pos);
> and, again, it returned 9. It seems like it does exactly the same as
> position(byte[] pattern, long start).
>
> Regarding its implementation, it's possible to simply get the byte
> array with pattern.getBytes(1, pattern.length()) and then use
> position(byte[] pattern, long start) with the obtained byte array.
>
> On 12/13/06, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Looks like the RI bug to me also. BTW, what does the another version
> > of position() method - position(Blob pattern, long start) - return in
> > these cases?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > 2006/12/13, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Oleg Khaschansky wrote:
> > > > I am not a guru, but my understanding is that RI behavior is
> > > > errorneous. I'd say that from the client point of view BLOBs are
just
> > > > byte arrays. I suggest to do exact search instead of following RI.
> > >
> > > Same for me -- looks like the right answer but don't claim expert
> > > knowledge in the area.
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel ESSD
--
Best regards,
Andrew Zhang
