On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make things >> pretty complicated and adds another dimension to groking the behavior of >> your service. I'm not sure that it's necessary. > Definitively a bad idea. > > What we need is an abstraction on top of an Array of ByteBuffer (the Java NIO > class), which extends the size by adding new ByteBuffer on the fly. > > The array must behave exactly as the ByteBuffer. > > I wrote such a class 2 years ago, but I can't find the code. Will look again > on my USB keys this week-end.
So, what is the scenario that we're trying to support? I imagine appending headers to binary data would be one. In this case is an Array of ByteBuffers really needed? Why not just send down one ByteBuffer for the header and another for the body that was sent to you? Searching for use cases where we need this complexity. :) Regards, Alan
