[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9091?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13729102#comment-13729102
]
stack commented on HBASE-9091:
------------------------------
[~ndimiduk] Just trying to keep it simple:
The below:
+ public T decode(byte[] buff, int offset);
becomes
+ public T decode(byte[] buff, Int offset);
The Int (Or MutableInteger) doesn't have to hold a volatile int; each thread
can pass in their own instance.
Then ByteRange goes undisturbed.
Having to scan the byte array twice -- once to deserialize and then again to
figure where to start the next deserialization -- is how they used do it on
flintstones computers.
> 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
