Kinkie wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Tsantilas Christos
<chtsa...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Hi all,
I believe that the D&C design is better than Universal Buffer because of
many reasons. My sense is that the Universal Buffer will be very complex and
will not have the desired results, because the real problems exist in other
subsystems (eg parsers).
But if choosing the D&C design means that we are going to wait for 2 or more
years to be implemented because of the lack of the development time maybe
it is better to accept the Universal Buffer design. It will not solve all
the problems but it is not bad, it is an improvement.
But again I like the idea of a well designed Buffers Api, where buffer
classes handle different cases and String be a class (or classes) which
operates on Buffer (sub-)regions.
The need to avoid data copying and the numerous xstrndup()s we have
laying around is in any case the key win to this.
OK.
The discussion on the topic went ahead on IRC yesterday. I've updated
the wiki to include it, please see
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/MeetUps/IrcMeetup-2009-01-17.
Long but very interested discussions :-). It remains to see the StringNg
in practice!
