Re: Efficient String to byte[] encoding

Ah, this was a kid's party so we went on the Redondo Beach pier (by Polly's) with 15 boys and fished off the pier. Gary On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Fishing? In LA? Oh that’s right you are actually south of LA. Still I > hope you are going out to deep water where the

Re: Efficient String to byte[] encoding

Pushed to master. On 9 November 2015 at 15:40, Matt Sicker wrote: > Gotta move all four string methods for this to work. I'll make them all > public for now. > > On 9 November 2015 at 15:17, Matt Sicker wrote: > >> Yeah, I can move that over. >> >> On 9 November 2015 at 15:15, Ralph Goers >> w

Re: Efficient String to byte[] encoding

Gotta move all four string methods for this to work. I'll make them all public for now. On 9 November 2015 at 15:17, Matt Sicker wrote: > Yeah, I can move that over. > > On 9 November 2015 at 15:15, Ralph Goers > wrote: > >> Fishing? In LA? Oh that’s right you are actually south of LA. Still

Re: Efficient String to byte[] encoding

Yeah, I can move that over. On 9 November 2015 at 15:15, Ralph Goers wrote: > Fishing? In LA? Oh that’s right you are actually south of LA. Still I > hope you are going out to deep water where the water is cleaner. > > Ralph > > On Nov 9, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Well, let's

Re: Efficient String to byte[] encoding

Fishing? In LA? Oh that’s right you are actually south of LA. Still I hope you are going out to deep water where the water is cleaner. Ralph > On Nov 9, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Well, let's start with StringEncoder in Core utils... can you do that? I'm > off today, taking

Re: Efficient String to byte[] encoding

Well, let's start with StringEncoder in Core utils... can you do that? I'm off today, taking my son fishing for his birthday... Gary On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > Depends if we want to add any other non-encoding string utility functions > to that or keep them separate. I

Re: Efficient String to byte[] encoding

Depends if we want to add any other non-encoding string utility functions to that or keep them separate. If separate, then StringEncoder sounds fine to me. On 9 November 2015 at 14:33, Gary Gregory wrote: > How about a Core StringEncoder util class? > > We have a "Strings" class in the API util

Re: Efficient String to byte[] encoding

How about a Core StringEncoder util class? We have a "Strings" class in the API util package, so it seems odd to have another "Strings" util class in the Core util package. Gary On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Well, we could keep it in the core util for now, the question

Re: Efficient String to byte[] encoding

Well, we could keep it in the core util for now, the question is where? Gary On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > I'd like to keep the API util to very low-level utility things needed by > the API, too. > > On 9 November 2015 at 11:49, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Nov 9

Re: Efficient String to byte[] encoding

I'd like to keep the API util to very low-level utility things needed by the API, too. On 9 November 2015 at 11:49, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Mikael Ståldal > wrote: > >> Can we make AbstractStringLayout.toBytes(String, Charset) public? >> >> I would like to use it

Re: Efficient String to byte[] encoding

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > Can we make AbstractStringLayout.toBytes(String, Charset) public? > > I would like to use it in KafkaAppender. > > If I understand it correctly, it is supposed to be more efficient than > String.getBytes(Charset). > We could move this to a

Efficient String to byte[] encoding

Can we make AbstractStringLayout.toBytes(String, Charset) public? I would like to use it in KafkaAppender. If I understand it correctly, it is supposed to be more efficient than String.getBytes(Charset). -- [image: MagineTV] *Mikael Ståldal* Senior software developer *Magine TV* mikael.stal..