On 2/10/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Costin Manolache wrote: > > Why not make MessageBytes implement CharSeq as well, for consistency ? > And > > maybe even ByteChunk - we're doing some > > (bad) conversions and toString() inside already. > > I think it could be useful in some rare cases. This was mostly to be > used on the URL, which goes through many (mandatory) transformations, > and ends up as a CharChunk.
Well, long time ago CharChunk and ByteChunk were supposed to be just an implementation detail of MessageBytes - which was supposed to hide the detail of chars and bytes and avoid the strings. But they were supposed to work together, and stay kind of consistent. > I don't remember refusing making CharChunk implement CharSequence, at > least > > not recently - I think it would > > Yes, you did refuse it. Sorry :-) I guess it had something to do with jdk compat ? Well, too lazy to search - but I doubt any reason would be valid today, most VMs have this. > be a great idea ! Older versions of tomcat that need pre-1.5 support will > > need to use a branch. > > Woops, sorry. I don't think the older branch are going to be able to use > HEAD forever due to the JDK dependencies (a branch can be created right > before my patch). +1 Costin
