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.

Reply via email to