+1 If only such little functionality is utilized, having those two classes is a waste. The new solution sounds much better.
So shall I proceed with the suggested solution? Regards, Nufail. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Bryan Pendleton <[email protected] > wrote: > On 05/22/2012 07:51 AM, Knut Anders Hatlen wrote: > >> I'm wondering if it would be more reasonable just to remove the two >> classes and make writeUDT() use either java.io.ByteArrayOutputStream or >> EncodedInputStream.**PublicBufferOutputStream instead. The latter class >> already is in the client.net package, but it would probably be a good >> idea to make it a stand-alone class and not an inner class if we want to >> reuse it in the Request class. >> >> That would reduce the code size and increase the percentage covered. >> > > +1 > > This sounds like a great idea to me. Nufail, what do you think? > > thanks, > > bryan > > -- Mohamed Nufail Undergraduate, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Moratuwa. Blog: http://www.nufailm.blogspot.com/
