On 9/23/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > > your patch would require double buffering when used with direct > > buffers and would require convertion of structured data into bytes. > > so, it's unsatisfactory for use cases 1 and 2. however, i'm not sure > > whether this is something that is worthwhile arguing about. > > Since it effects use cases 1 and 2, both of which I consider important, the > answer is YES! Emphatically and unequivocally.
i find it difficult to understand the intended design when reviewing lots of small patches. yes, jochen's patches would regress the hooks i'd added to support use cases 1 and 2 but it is more than possible that he has an alternative design in mind which would also support them. but the key question is whether mime4j should aim to support these use cases if so, then if we can determine a general strategy for 'how' then it will be much easier to code and review these small patches - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
