"이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > Therefore, I'd propose to use a dedicated type instead of > Iterable<ByteBuffer>. WDYT?
Or we could keep using Iterable<ByteBuffer> leaving down-casting (or construction of a new CompositeByteBuffer) as an implementor's homework? -- 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
