David M. Lloyd wrote: > On 04/28/2008 01:09 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >> May be but this is just a Buffer, not a data structure ! BB are really >> meant to be used as a fixed and temporary storage, not as something a >> user application can use at will. > > Yes, I think the important change is to break the 1:1 association > between a buffer and a message. > > That's what this part of the thread is really all about I think.
Very true. I actually don't care even if we use NIO ByteBuffer as a underlying storage and build something on top of it. The problem is to find out how we can protect users from modifying position, limit, mark and order - these four properties must be handled in our abstraction layer, which breaks the 1:1 association. We might be able to enforce such restriction without introducing new types. Let me research a little bit about this and check in the prototype. -- Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
