On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 09:38 -0400, Alan Conway wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 19:17 +0200, Božo Dragojevič wrote: > > > Given the memory overhead of a pn_data_t before encoding, why not have it > > > own an encode buffer? it could get by with exactly that grow_buffer() > > > callback if ownership is the issue . > > > > I think the best way to do this would be to introduce a new class to sit > on top of the existing pn_data_t which does this, rather than extending > the current pn_data_t. > > So I think the below is fine, but I'd prefer to avoid stuffing it all > into pn_data_t especially as I think the class is, long term, going > away.
Who's replacing it ;) ? Are they taking notes? Cheers, Alan.
