"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.
Why do you want to protect those internal values ? The contract is
pretty clear, and if a user fucks with those values, eh, too bad for him !
If we do care, maybe another option would be to transform those BB to
byte[] and let the user play with the limits by himself...
But I do think that as soon as you have been burnt once with the limit,
position and mark, as a smart user, you RTFM and try to respect the API
contract :)
Am I missing something important ?
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
