Am Die, 29 Aug 2000 schrieb Dalibor Topic:
> > Is it not fair to assume that converting n bytes will result in less than
> > or equal to n characters?
>
> For most of encodings that I've seen, it is a safe assumption.
> Unfortunately, I haven't seen 'em all :)
>
> I'm suspicious that it's
> p
Hi Godmar,
Am Die, 29 Aug 2000 schrieb Godmar Back:
> I was looking at this function in String.java:
>
>
> private static StringBuffer decodeBytes(byte[] bytes, int offset,
> int len, ByteToCharConverter encoding) {
> StringBuffer sbuf = new StringBuffer(len);
>
Am Mon, 28 Aug 2000 schrieb Artur Biesiadowski:
> Godmar Back wrote:
> I've looked at this and I don't see a reason for CharToByteConverter to
> go through encode/flush stes - it would work perfectly all right with
> single step method, returning new byte[] for example. For
I think there are tw
Dali,
I was looking at this function in String.java:
private static StringBuffer decodeBytes(byte[] bytes, int offset,
int len, ByteToCharConverter encoding) {
StringBuffer sbuf = new StringBuffer(len);
char[] out = new char[512];
int outlen = encod
Am Mon, 28 Aug 2000 schrieb Artur Biesiadowski:
> And why exactly default converter could not be cached and same instance
> used for all conversions ? I think it is stateless class, so it should
> be safe to enter same object method from various threads with all state
> on stack.
It depends on
Godmar Back wrote:
> It is not stateless; it keeps track of not converted characters/bytes
> if there are any left. See the carry/flush methods.
>
> The converter only converts 512 bytes at a time (see String.decodeBytes).
> Now just why the converter does that, I don't know. It's not immedi
>
>
> Godmar Back wrote:
>
> [...] Every call results in a new
> > converter object being newinstanced, just to convert a bunch of bytes.
> > (The new converter was one of the changes done to make the
> > charset conversion thread-safe.)
> [...]
>
> And why exactly default converter could n
Hi Godmar,
sorry for the delay, but I was on holidays last week, and away from my
mail.
Am Sam, 19 Aug 2000 schrieben Sie:
> From what I understand, and someone correct me if I'm wrong,
> there shouldn't be any reason not to include the change you suggest -
> if someone implements it, of course
Godmar Back wrote:
[...] Every call results in a new
> converter object being newinstanced, just to convert a bunch of bytes.
> (The new converter was one of the changes done to make the
> charset conversion thread-safe.)
[...]
And why exactly default converter could not be cached and same in
>From what I understand, and someone correct me if I'm wrong,
there shouldn't be any reason not to include the change you suggest -
if someone implements it, of course.
If I understand your proposal right, you'd use an array for
the first 256 values and a hashtable or something like that
for t
10 matches
Mail list logo
