I really do not think the ByteBuffer javadoc for the trunk is all that bad. Could you please list some specific areas that would necessitate a rewrite?
Thank you. On 7/7/07, 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. Just my 2 cents. Gili -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Refactor-ByteBuffer-for-2.0--tf4042211.html#a11483207 Sent from the mina dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- ..Cheers Mark
