On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 15:58 -0700, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: > > This problem is a small detail. Much more should be done if you want to > > do a refactoring: both the mark functionality and readLine need to have > > direct access to the buffer to be able to be coded in a sane way (and be > > more efficient too). > > > yes, so the question is for 6.0.x and 5.5.x, do we wanna proceed down > the refactor route? > I was against it in the beginning for the fear of regression. I > personally think the whole bytechunk/charchunk thing is very complex, > and can be done easier, but that is something I would play around in > sandbox, and eventually bring into trunk if it was working.
I am not really interested in participating. Besides some possible simple cleanup, CharChunk is actually too simple rather than too complex (ByteChunk is just fine, and doesn't need additional features): to improve, it would need to get mark capabilities and (unfortunately) get a readLine (it's even more problematic to implement it outside the class). I am pretty sure using the NIO buffers will be proposed for some reason, which are horrible to use as far as I am concerned. > for 6.0.x and 5.5.x, I'd rather keep the fixes to the actual bug fix to > maintain stability There's no way this sort of work could be good for these branches. Rémy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
