"이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > 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.
Uh-oh. It's simply impossible due to the two abstract methods in ByteBuffer - _get() and _set(). :-( -- 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
