Why not just call ByteBuffer.wrap? The array that is returned today is already copied. When you wrap, you’re essentially creating a ByteBuffer that references the byte[] passed back by zeromq. When you allocate direct, you’re unnecessarily copying this byte[] again.
Parag From: zeromq-dev-boun...@lists.zeromq.org [mailto:zeromq-dev-boun...@lists.zeromq.org] On Behalf Of Trevor Bernard Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 12:59 PM To: ZeroMQ development list Subject: [zeromq-dev] ByteBuffer API for JZMQ In the next couple of days I will be writing a ByteByffer API for JZMQ I would like to hear the communities thoughts. I was thinking of something along the lines of: int sendByteBuffer(ByteBuffer bb, int flags); int recvByteBuffer(ByteBuffer bb, int flags); int recvByteBuffer(int flags); Implementation seems straightforward enough. Though it really only makes sense to use a Direct ByteBuffer since it's allocated off the heap and can be passed to libzmq without a copy. Otherwise you'd have to copy the underlying byte[]. So does it make sense to only support a direct bytebuffer? Thoughts? -Trev
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
