Yeah I don't think we should add a way to inject decoders into ByteString...
I'd be very interested to hear why the JDK is not optimal here. On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Evan Jones <ev...@mit.edu> wrote: > On May 3, 2010, at 21:11 , Evan Jones wrote: > >> Yes, I actually changed ByteString, since ByteString.copyFromUtf8 is how >> protocol buffers get UTF-8 encoded strings at this point. >> > > Although now that I think about it, I think it might be possible to enable > this only for SPEED messages, if that might make it interesting. It may > require some gross stuff in ByteString, though, in order to be able to > create ByteStrings using a different code path, without including the .class > files in the lite jar. > > My guess: this probably isn't worth an extra 10-20% performance > improvement. I'll try to clean up and maintain the patch, so speed freak > types can always patch their own implementations. > > Evan > > -- > Evan Jones > http://evanjones.ca/ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Protocol Buffers" group. > To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
