On 20/09/2007, Rafael Schloming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps I didn't understand your suggestion.
OK, now I am confused I think... > It sounds to me like it is > the same thing as doing nothing at all. No, I meant enhance the current implementation of AMQShortString to correct the weaknesses already discussed for encoding. > The generated API would use > String and there would be no copying on encode, however that still > leaves the overhead of copying and unicode character conversion on > decode. It is the latter part that using AMQShortString or the > CharSequence interface can avoid. But the current implementation of AMQShortString lazily decodes? What is the copying you are referring to? RG
