On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:31 PM, V.B. <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
