, 2010 at 3:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Deprecate Buffers.
> To: Vasily Chekalkin
>
>
> Why do they even need deprecation? Are they user visible somehow?
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Vasily Chekalkin wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> Currently we have STRING and B
-- Forwarded message --
From: Peter Lobsinger
Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: Deprecate Buffers.
To: Vasily Chekalkin
Why do they even need deprecation? Are they user visible somehow?
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Vasily Chekalkin wrote:
> He
> Currently we have STRING and Buffers as one of core GCable objects.
> Buffers were introduced long time ago, before ByteBuffer PMC. At this
> point of Buffers used only in Packfiles and can be easiliy replaced
> with BytBuffer.
Note that ByteBuffer, as its name implies, provides only byte
addres
replaced
> with BytBuffer.
>
> I would like to deprecate Buffers. It will simplify life of ony GC
> implementors (e.g. me with gc_massacre), cleanup code, decrease
> maintenance cost, etc.
+1 from me.
Also "bufferlike_header" pool is not used anymore and it's purpose is
t; Hello.
>
> Currently we have STRING and Buffers as one of core GCable objects.
> Buffers were introduced long time ago, before ByteBuffer PMC. At this
> point of Buffers used only in Packfiles and can be easiliy replaced
> with BytBuffer.
>
> I would like to deprecate Buffers. It
Hello.
Currently we have STRING and Buffers as one of core GCable objects.
Buffers were introduced long time ago, before ByteBuffer PMC. At this
point of Buffers used only in Packfiles and can be easiliy replaced
with BytBuffer.
I would like to deprecate Buffers. It will simplify life of ony GC
