Julien Vermillard wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:20:51 +0900 (KST) > "이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I tried a quick prototyping of the ByteArray interface I've mentioned >> in our previous discussion thread. I wanted to check in the code >> right now for easier review, but ASF-wide SVN write access has been >> disabled due to some hardware issue. Let me paste it here: >> >> http://pastebin.com/m37fb44ba >> >> The idea is to implement a ByteBuffer-backed ByteArray class and >> implement some variable length buffer-of-arrays using it. WDYT? >> > > No get/set for other types than bytes ?
I think we should have get/set for all integer primitive types if we are
going to implement CompositeByteArray.
For other types, we can choose one of the following:
1) Provide an AbstractByteArray which provides the default
implementation of all the utility getters and setters - this is what we
are doing right now.
2) Provide a utility class which is composed of many utility methods and
use static imports. For example:
import static org.apache.mina.array.ArrayUtils.*;
String s = getPrefixedString(array)
It seems like the second approach is gaining popularity recently in the
mailing list. I'd like to know what others think about this change though.
--
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
