Costin Manolache wrote:
And CharBuffer, I hope. So you'll be extending (ByteChunk extends
ByteBuffer) ?
CharBuffer would go to MessageBytes.
I'm thinking more as an 'uses' - you create ByteBuffers ( maybe direct
buffers ), and
you set it in the ByteChunk. "Extend" is not the best choice - it
would be hard to work with direct ( or other ) buffers. I'm actually
thinking about adding some static methods as well for all the utils we
have in BB.
I didn't do any tests, but accessing direct buffers contents seems
vastly more expensive. I don't see how they could be used other than for:
- buffering (as done in the APR connectors)
- transferring bytes without manipulating them in Java (ex: sending a
file on a socket)
Did you do some microbenchmarks ?
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
