On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 18:49:08 GMT, Brian Burkhalter <b...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> resizing/newCapacity is always expensive and tricky, string builder >> included. so maybe we should decide if 'long lines' (> transfer buffer size) >> is the goal of this pr. if not, it might be reasonable/make sense (???) to >> simply go with "string" + the built-in string concatenation -> we don't care >> the scenario that most of the 'lines' > buffer.size. i do agree we probably >> want to avoid paying the cost of copying in & out of the sb, but tweaking >> the transfer buffer resizing might also be tricky and potentially out of the >> scope as well. yes, it's always a trade off. > >> My suggestion is to call `new StringBuilder(0)` > > So changed in 8ccfd54. > When a partial line is left in the transfer buffer, copy it to the beginning > of the buffer and read more characters for the remaining size of the buffer. The "transfer buffer" is the character array `cb`, right? > You might still need a fallback for really long lines (> transfer buffer > size), but that might be more easily handled by reallocating the transfer > buffer to make it larger. The size of the array `cb` is not intended to be commensurate with line length, but rather to allow reading multiple lines thereby cutting down the nunber of reads. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25863#discussion_r2164702082
