[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2817?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14326880#comment-14326880
]
Matt Dailey commented on ACCUMULO-2817:
---------------------------------------
Realized I need to add in bounds checking to all of the {{decode(byte[], int,
int)}} impls.
So, two design questions:
1. Bounds checking wouldn't be necessary for when {{decode(byte[])}} calls the
other method, so would it be a good idea to do the following, or is this
over-optimizing?
{code:java}
@Override
public T decode(byte[] b) {
return decodeUnchecked(b, 0, b.length);
}
/** @since 1.7.0 */
public T decode(byte[] b, int offset, int len) throws ValueFormatException {
if (offset + len > b.length) {
throw new ValueFormatException(String.format(
"offset + length %d exceeds byte array length %d",
(offset+len), b.length));
} else {
return decodeUnchecked(b, offset, len);
}
}
/** @since 1.7.0 */
public T decodeUnchecked(byte[] b, int offset, int len) {
...
}
{code}
2. Do we agree it would be prudent to make a {{public abstract class
AbstractEncoder<T> implements Encoder<T>}} that has the above boilerplate
{{decode(byte[], int, int)}} and {{decode(byte[])}} methods?
> Add offset and limit arguments to byte array Encoder.decode method
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-2817
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2817
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: client
> Reporter: Josh Elser
> Assignee: Matt Dailey
> Labels: newbie
> Fix For: 1.7.0
>
> Attachments: ACCUMULO-2817.patch
>
>
> Similar to ACCUMULO-2445, but presently the encoder only works on complete
> byte arrays. This forces an extra copy of the data when it is located in an
> array that contains other information (e.g. a composite key).
> It would be nice to be able to provide offset and length arguments to
> {{Encoder.decode}} so that users can avoid the additional arraycopy.
> Changing to a ByteBuffer instead of byte array argument would also be
> acceptable, but more churn on the API that, unless it's happening globally, I
> would rather avoid. It would also incur the penalty for that extra Object,
> which while minimal alone, could be significant if decoding every value in a
> table, for example.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
