On 2016-11-01, M N wrote:
>> read never indicates EOF as it stands, I think we should return -1
>> rather than 0 when position equals size. WDYT?
> Yes, indeed the contract specifies to return -1 in this case so we
> should change this.
will do.
>>> In resize() method there is also a danger to
Hi Stefan,
(...)
> read never indicates EOF as it stands, I think we should return -1
> rather than 0 when position equals size. WDYT?
Yes, indeed the contract specifies to return -1 in this case so we should
change this.
>> In resize() method there is also a danger to overflow integer
Hi Maciej
patch applied.
On 2016-10-22, M N wrote:
> Going back to the fix - first I've done the homework and read the contract of
> SeekableByteChannel.position(long) method.
> It influences read() and write() operation.
> Citation of the most important part:
> "Setting the position to a
... and patch is attached to Jira COMPRESS-327
From: M N
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 2:04:53 PM
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Subject: Re: [compress] Added in-memory support for zip and 7z
All,
OK, volatile won't hurt anyway.
Going
All,
OK, volatile won't hurt anyway.
Going back to the fix - first I've done the homework and read the contract of
SeekableByteChannel.position(long) method.
It influences read() and write() operation.
Citation of the most important part:
"Setting the position to a value that is greater
On 2016-10-20, wrote:
> Even when a stream is not thread safe I try at least to make close()
> safe/atomic as aborts and finalizers or shutdown hooks are natural
> sources for concurrency – all using close().
true.
> (However I guess it is less problematic for memory
On 2016-10-20, M N wrote:
> I have created tests for SeekableInMemoryByteChannel and spot small error.
Great, thanks Maciej.
> Attached is a patch with tests and proposed fix.
The mailing list is set up to strip attachments (at least I don't see
any). Could you attach it to a JIRA issue?
Hi Stefan,
I have created tests for SeekableInMemoryByteChannel and spot small error.
Attached is a patch with tests and proposed fix.
Regarding thread safety I think would be more clear to remove volatile and
document a class as not thread safe.
I think the need for thread safe