On 3/3/08, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Costin Manolache wrote: > > On 3/3/08, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > >> > > > > I think the byte->char conversion should be cleaned, the InputStream hack > > was > > needed 9 years ago because regular conversion sucked and we couldn't use > > the > > convertors directly. I've seen quite a few other projects doing the > > conversion > > themself at least for UTF8 and 8859-1. > > > > no one disagrees with that. It's just that 5.5.x and 6.0.x is not the > place for that cleanup.
Sorry, I didn't mean for 5.5.x or 6.0.x, but for whatever is next. Maybe making coyote more independent would make some sense ? Costin > > > Regarding using NIO buffers - I agree with Remy, the flip()s are horrible, > > I think > > there is a version in sandbox that replaces byte[] with the ByteBuffers, > and > > it doesn't > > seem to be worth it. > > However I think it would be just great to start making a distinction > between > > 'buffer' and > > 'pointer to a buffer' - IMO that's the main cause of complexity. > > absolutely. > > > And maybe > > add > > 'implements CharSequence, Appendable' to make the coyote classes more > > friendly for > > direct use. > > > > > > > >> 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. > >> > > > > Since I'm quite out of sync - what is the current 'dev branch' and is there > > any > > 'some API changes allowed' release planned ? > > Costin > > > > > > Rémy > > > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date: 3/2/2008 > 3:59 PM > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
