[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-823?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13006821#comment-13006821
]
Emmanuel Lecharny commented on DIRMINA-823:
-------------------------------------------
I read you. Howerver, again, there is no difference between putInt() and
putUnsignedInt().
In fact, the message I wanted to convey is that the getUnsignedXXX methods have
a very specific semantic : to guarantee that we cast a value into a bigger
container (getUnsignedInt stores the value into a long), and the semantic of
such a method is really wrong, IMHO.
Should we continue to walk this path, just because the initial API has (again,
IMHO) decided to provide some semantically wrong methods ?
(note that I didn't rejected the issue, I just try to get a clear opinion about
this one. Adding the requested methods would be a matter of minutes)
> Add IoBuffer.putUnsigned* methods to balance the getUnsigned* methods for
> completeness
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DIRMINA-823
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-823
> Project: MINA
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Affects Versions: 2.0.2
> Environment: WXP SP3, Sun SDK 1.5
> Reporter: Francis ANDRE
> Priority: Trivial
>
> While unsigned integers types are quite meaningful in networking protocols,
> Java does not provide unsigned integer primitive types. The
> IoBuffer.getUnsigned* methods are filling the gap between the need of
> unsigned integers and the real Java programs.
> But IoBuffer does not provide the correlative IoBuffer.putUnsigned* methods.
> Thus for completeness, this issue proposes to add those IoBuffer.putUnsigned*
> methods.
> Rgds
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
