[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9091?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13728742#comment-13728742
]
Nick Dimiduk commented on HBASE-9091:
-------------------------------------
bq. Do you mean volatile here:
I was reading/editing as I went, considering the different aspects of the
class's state, what was and wasn't intended to be passed along. {{volatile}}
does make sense from a concurrent access perspective.
bq. It is ugly that we have to reget the offset
I agree :) On the other hand, I now appreciate the simplicity of working on a
raw byte[]. This is consistent with the existing Bytes. Is it worth while
shipping the byte[] version and later adding the tracking version? Maintaining
both APIs will be a source of bugs to be sure.
> Update ByteRange to maintain consumer's position
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-9091
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9091
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Client
> Reporter: Nick Dimiduk
> Assignee: Nick Dimiduk
> Attachments: 0001-HBASE-9091-Extend-ByteRange.patch,
> 0001-HBASE-9091-Extend-ByteRange.patch
>
>
> ByteRange is a useful alternative to Java's ByteBuffer. Notably, it is
> mutable and an instance can be assigned over a byte[] after instantiation.
> This is valuable as a performance consideration when working with byte[]
> slices in a tight loop. Its current design is such that it is not possible to
> consume a portion of the range while performing activities like decoding an
> object without altering the definition of the range. It should provide a
> position that is independent from the range's offset and length to make
> partial reads easier.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
