Hi, On 7/8/07, cowwoc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I noticed you are removing pooling and acquire()/release() of ByteBuffer in 2.0. Can you please consider refactoring ByteBuffer to be a helper class that fits on top of or alongside NIO's ByteBuffer? It seems to me that most of the methods in your version of ByteBuffer are just convenience methods. If you look at Grizzly's API they scattered that functionality across different classes (i.e. ByteBufferInputStream) which led to a much cleaner API. Right now I feel that ByteBuffer is stuffed full of convenience methods that most people won't use on a regular basis. I would advocate a minimistic API containing only methods people are most likely to use because anything more clutters the API and makes it harder to learn how to use. Also, I don't mean to offend anyone, but the Javadoc documentation for ByteBuffer needs to be rewritten by a native English speaker.
Which methods are 'most likely to be used'? The bells and whistles we added are based on our experience, and we found them very useful. They also follow the naming convention that NIO ByteBuffer used, so I don't think it doesn't affect learning curve. If there's a unnecessary method, please let us know. ... and you can always provide us patch if there's broken English in JavaDoc. As you know, it's easy for other people to find errors than for the author. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
