robert burrell donkin-2 wrote:
>
> your patch would require double buffering when used with direct
> buffers and would require convertion of structured data into bytes.
> so, it's unsatisfactory for use cases 1 and 2. however, i'm not sure
> whether this is something that is worthwhile arguing about.
>
You haven't even see the patch, so how do you know?
Double buffering: I don't see why. The patch was designed to work with the
buffers provided by a thread that's doing select().
Convertion of structured data into bytes: How's that different from what we
have now? And, if you really want to provide structured data, then the
proper way to do so is to refactor an interface out of the MimeTokenStream
and provide an implementation that produces the same events. Or, do the same
thing by firing events to a ContentHandler.
Jochen
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-Mime4J--Support-For-Non-Streaming-Inputs-tf4490104.html#a12838664
Sent from the James - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
