On Mon, 30 May 2022 05:29:01 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> More practically.
>> This PR has a noticeable negative effect - it increases the size of
>> InputStream objects. Moreover, it increases the size of InputStream
>> subclasses which has own skip() implementation and don't need this
>>
On Mon, 30 May 2022 05:29:01 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> However, I think your suggestion to change the no-arg read/write be
> non-abstract is interesting as it's always a pain to have to implement that.
@AlanBateman this need a csr IMO?
-
PR:
On Sun, 29 May 2022 18:15:52 GMT, Sergey Kuksenko wrote:
> 5. skip() is not implemented, when not-so-trivial implementation is possible
> (9 classes):
For the low-level streams (e.g. connected to socket) then it would be common to
see them wrapped by buffered streams. So it might not be worth
On Sun, 29 May 2022 18:23:03 GMT, Sergey Kuksenko wrote:
>> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> invert if; refine javadoc.
>
> Another InputStreams cleaning direction.
>
> Many InputStream subclasses have
On Tue, 24 May 2022 20:40:51 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
>> @jmehrens what about this then?
>> I think it safe now(actually this mechanism is learned from Reader)
>
> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> invert if; refine
On Tue, 24 May 2022 20:40:51 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
>> @jmehrens what about this then?
>> I think it safe now(actually this mechanism is learned from Reader)
>
> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> invert if; refine
On Thu, 26 May 2022 15:43:57 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
> > Is there any practical scenario where the current code (skip buffer
> > allocation on each invocation) creates issues?
>
> @kuksenko Not found any yet :)
In that case, what is the value of this PR? Do we need a code change for the
sake
On Wed, 25 May 2022 23:23:13 GMT, Sergey Kuksenko wrote:
> Is there any practical scenario where the current code (skip buffer
> allocation on each invocation) creates issues?
@kuksenko Not found any yet :)
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5872
On Tue, 24 May 2022 20:40:51 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
>> @jmehrens what about this then?
>> I think it safe now(actually this mechanism is learned from Reader)
>
> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> invert if; refine
> @jmehrens what about this then?
> I think it safe now(actually this mechanism is learned from Reader)
XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
invert if; refine javadoc.
-
Changes:
- all:
10 matches
Mail list logo
