On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:31 PM, V.B. vidalborro...@gmail.com wrote:
... Actually, I just now took a closer look at the readChunk() method.
Even that method makes an internal copy, so it looks like readChunk() isn't
what we are looking for after all. Hmmm.
It seems to me that readChunk() has
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:31 PM, V.B. vidalborro...@gmail.com wrote:
... Actually, I just now took a closer look at the readChunk() method.
Even that method makes an internal copy, so it looks like readChunk() isn't
what we
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Oliver Jowett oliver.jow...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:31 PM, V.B. vidalborro...@gmail.com wrote:
... Actually, I just now took a closer look at the readChunk() method.
Even
Greetings all,
We are using version 2.5. What is the most efficient way (*i.e.* single
copy operation, no extra byte arrays) to construct a ByteString from a
specific number of bytes in an InputStream? The various versions of
ByteString.readFrom() drain the stream completely, which is not
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM, V.B. vidalborro...@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings all,
We are using version 2.5. What is the most efficient way (*i.e.*single
copy operation, no extra byte arrays) to construct a ByteString from
a specific number of bytes in an InputStream? The various
Hi Feng Xiao! Thanks for the response.
That's actually our backup plan. We were hoping to avoid it, though,
since the wrappers would each contain an extra copy of the data internally.
Our ideal case is for the data to get copied in a single step directly from
an InputStream to a ByteString
... Actually, I just now took a closer look at the readChunk() method. Even
that method makes an internal copy, so it looks like readChunk() isn't what
we are looking for after all. Hmmm.
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 12:28:56 AM UTC-4, V.B. wrote:
Hi Feng Xiao! Thanks for the response.
