On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Oliver Jowett <oliver.jow...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Feng Xiao <xiaof...@google.com> wrote:
>> 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).
> Does ByteString need to worry about hostile InputStreams? The stream could
> retain a reference to the bytearray it was given in the read() call.
Hmm, I haven't thought of that. Seems it should be the reason why it does
that copy. Given that, there isn't any way to construct a ByteString with
just one copy.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.