Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> the disadvantage with using a byte array rather than a bytebuffer is
> that direct bytebuffers would have to copy their data out into a byte
> array. using a byte buffer at the lowest level would solve this issue
> without really an added overhead for the bio case (just create a byte
> array backed buffer and then fill that buffer from the inputstream).
Given my background in real-time, embedded, systems, I'd like to see us
improving performance, and doing a lot less movement of data. So I'm in
favor of changes that reduce data movement.
Here's a question for the lot of you: is this similar to DOM vs SAX, and if
so, can we come up with a StAX solution? Just go with the analogy, but the
issue is a best of both worlds.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
