Remy Maucherat wrote:
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 15:58 -0700, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
This problem is a small detail. Much more should be done if you want to
do a refactoring: both the mark functionality and readLine need to have
direct access to the buffer to be able to be coded in a sane way (and be
more efficient too).
yes, so the question is for 6.0.x and 5.5.x, do we wanna proceed down
the refactor route?
I was against it in the beginning for the fear of regression. I
personally think the whole bytechunk/charchunk thing is very complex,
and can be done easier, but that is something I would play around in
sandbox, and eventually bring into trunk if it was working.
I am not really interested in participating. Besides some possible
simple cleanup, CharChunk is actually too simple rather than too complex
(ByteChunk is just fine, and doesn't need additional features): to
improve, it would need to get mark capabilities and (unfortunately) get
a readLine (it's even more problematic to implement it outside the
class). I am pretty sure using the NIO buffers will be proposed for some
reason, which are horrible to use as far as I am concerned.
for 6.0.x and 5.5.x, I'd rather keep the fixes to the actual bug fix to
maintain stability
There's no way this sort of work could be good for these branches.
what the above lines meant, is that for 5.5.x and 6.0.x I don't think
any refactoring is in order, its not needed. keep it to the simple bug
fixes, from your response, I understand you took it the other way.
Filip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
