On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:31 PM, V.B. <vidalborro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ... Actually, I just now took a closer look at the readChunk() method.
> Even that method makes an internal copy, so it looks like readChunk() isn't
> what we are looking for after all. Hmmm.

It seems to me that readChunk() has done a redundant copy which can be
eliminated (and should be). I don't understand why the wrapper has to
contain an extra copy though. Isn't it just copying the data to the
destination directly?


>
>
> On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 12:28:56 AM UTC-4, V.B. wrote:
>>
>> Hi Feng Xiao! Thanks for the response.
>>     That's actually our backup plan. We were hoping to avoid it, though,
>> since the wrappers would each contain an extra copy of the data internally.
>> Our ideal case is for the data to get copied in a single step directly from
>> an InputStream to a ByteString with no intermediate copies along the way.
>> Question: You would know best... Would the safety of ByteStrings be
>> preserved if the readChunk() method were to be made public? If so, I'll
>> open a feature request on the issue tracker.
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Protocol Buffers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to