DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36352>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-26 09:59 ------- If you start by having a byte[] e.g. in a singleton, your argument is right. However if you start by having a ByteArrayInputStream (e.g. received from mysql jdbc), each time you construct a new ByteArrayInputStream for an additional thread by doing a java.io.ByteArrayInputStream.read(byte b[], int off, int len) where len equals the entire array length as per available(), to obtain the byte[] for constructing the java.io.ByteArrayInputStream for the next Thread, you always get a System.arraycopy(buf, pos, b, off, len), so by allocating b, your memory consumption grows with each additional thread. So, yes, by actively managing one single byte[] once instead of a ByteArrayInputStream and use it to construct a java.io.ByteArrayInputStream for each Thread, a ThreadableInputStream class may become obsolete. So, if you think this pattern is the way to go I am fine with resolving this as "WONTFIX" - what do you think? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
