On 02/17/2015 11:22 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> You'll still have to allocate a wrapping ByteBuffer object to use them.
>> I expect that makes them unattractive in many cases.
>
> Hmm. I'm having a hard time trying to understand why. If you need to
> do a lot of accesses the allocation of the ByteBuffer won't be
> significant; if you don't need to do a lot of accesses it won't
> matter either.
The typical use case I have in mind is exemplified by
com.sun.crypto.provider.GHASH(processBlock(byte[] data, int ofs):
174 private void processBlock(byte[] data, int ofs) {
175 if (data.length - ofs < AES_BLOCK_SIZE) {
176 throw new RuntimeException("need complete block");
177 }
178 state0 ^= getLong(data, ofs);
179 state1 ^= getLong(data, ofs + 8);
180 blockMult(subkeyH0, subkeyH1);
181 }
That is, the byte array is supplied by the caller, and if we wanted to
use a ByteBuffer, we would have to allocate a fresh one on every
iteration. In this case, neither of the two alternatives you list apply.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
