[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-33?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13065114#comment-13065114
]
Ivan Kelly edited comment on BOOKKEEPER-33 at 7/14/11 8:41 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
{quote}
// from Utkarsh on dev list
Is it worth using ByteBuffer instead of passing around offset and limit
separately?
{quote}
I wouldn't like to have
{code}
public long addEntry(byte[] data) throws InterruptedException, BKException {
{code}
and
{code}
public long addEntry(ByteBuffer data) throws InterruptedException, BKException {
{code}
This looks a little imbalanced to me. I'd prefer to either have only the
ByteBuffer call, or to have:
{code}
public long addEntry(byte[] data) throws InterruptedException, BKException {
public long addEntry(byte[] data, int offset, int length) throws
InterruptedException, BKException {
{code}
Internally we could use bytebuffers easily though. If we simply add a
ByteBuffer method to the api, we should change all the other methods to work
with byte buffers too.
was (Author: ikelly):
{quote}
// from Utkarsh on dev list
Is it worth using ByteBuffer instead of passing around offset and limit
separately?
{quote}
I wouldn't like to have
{code}
public long addEntry(byte[] data) throws InterruptedException, BKException {
{code}
and
{code}
public long addEntry(ByteBuffer data) throws InterruptedException, BKException {
{code}
This looks a little imbalanced to me. I'd prefer to either have only the
ByteBuffer call, or to have:
{code}
public long addEntry(byte[] data) throws InterruptedException, BKException {
public long addEntry(byte[] data, int offset, int length) throws
InterruptedException, BKException {
{code}
Internally we could use bytebuffers easily though.
> Add length and offset parameter to addEntry
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-33
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-33
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Ivan Kelly
>
> <from email to dev list>
> I'm having an issue with the LedgerHandle#addEntry api.
> [1] best illustrates it. I'm buffering namenode transactions in the stream
> and only transmitting when either flush is called or I have enough data to
> pass my threshold. This means I have a byte buffer in my class which I fill
> up as new transactions come in. When I transmit, I set this buffer as an
> entry to bookkeeper. I.e. N whole namenode transactions will be contained in
> 1 single bk entry.
> The problem is this byte buffer (DataOutputBuffer in this case). I reuse the
> same buffer over and over. But this buffer has a fixed size. If I transmit
> before it is full, the whole buffer size will be transmitted anyhow. If the
> buffer is being reused, this will retransmit old transactions out of order.
> For example, in the first use, the buffer fills with, [a,b,c,d,e] and adds
> this as an entry and resets the byte buffer. Then transaction f is added and
> flushed, in this case [f,b,c,d,e] is not transmitted.
> What I need is the ability to set offset and length in the byte[] passed to
> addEntry. Is there a reason this wasn't added in the initial implementation?
> If not, and if you agree this is a valid usecase, ill open a JIRA and add
> this functionality. Im getting around this now by doing an extra Array.copyOf
> which is less than ideal.
> </from email>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
