After long long IRC conversation with Emmanuel Lecharny, Julien Vermillard and David M. Lloyd. We seem to have reached to the following temporary consensus:
1) Ditch IoBuffer and use ByteBuffer directly. 2) Provide all convenience methods IoBuffer provide as static methods so they can be static-imported. 3) Modify our filter implementations to understand ByteBuffer and Iterable<ByteBuffer>. 4) Update the IoFilter tutorial to inform users about this change. This change means we decided not to create a new type to support composite buffer. Iterable<ByteBuffer> seems to be enough. This change will take place in a new branch and its review will be requested before merger. Another issue to think about is how we can implement auto-expansion. Many users find it very useful when they construct a variable length message. My idea right now is to provide a builder class which builds an Iterable<ByteBuffer> or ByteBuffer depending on user preference. Same preference property should be provided by the protocol codec framework for those who still wants a single ByteBuffer. I will also explore this in the branch. Any more feed back before I proceed? Cheers, -- Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
