Hi, On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Niall Pemberton <[email protected]> wrote: > What about using a (read-only?) ByteBuffer[1] rather than InputStream > to avoid the issue of implementations doing things with the > InputStream that they shouldn't?
I'd like to avoid having the Detector API fix the specific number of prefix bytes that are available for content type detection. This is why I prefer using InputStream as the argument. It's simple enough to wrap a stream into a proxy that prevents an unknown detector from doing anything else than read from the stream. BR, Jukka Zitting
