On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Niall Pemberton > <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: >> What about using a (read-only?) ByteBuffer[1] rather than InputStream >> to avoid the issue of implementations doing things with the >> InputStream that they shouldn't? > > I'd like to avoid having the Detector API fix the specific number of > prefix bytes that are available for content type detection. This is > why I prefer using InputStream as the argument. It's simple enough to > wrap a stream into a proxy that prevents an unknown detector from > doing anything else than read from the stream.
But your API says "...the detector must only read up to a limited number of bytes from the stream to avoid potentially unbounded memory use for the buffer of a marked a stream." - with a ByteBuffer the detector would be able to discover how many its allowed to read - otherwise how are you going to prevent it going past the limit - throw an exception? Potentially as well it could be much more efficient. Niall > prefix bytes that are available > BR, > > Jukka Zitting >
