The buffer increases performance actually. Its faster to write a file in 8KB blocks than 1 byte at a time.
Gary On Sep 25, 2011, at 13:55, "Jörg Schaible" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Timo, > > Timo Rumland wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> sorry to bump this, but does anyone not have a comment to my question? >> I really think I missed something, I can't imagine that the Commons IO >> "forgot" to buffer the bytes that should be written to a file. >> >> Please see my original question below. > > Why should it? You provide all the bytes which are written immediately and > the stream is closed afterwards. So what should a buffer be good for except > for decreasing performance? > > - Jörg > >> >> Thanks a lot! >> >> ------------------------------------- >> >>> Hello, >> >>> I recently started using the FileUtils class of Commons IO, and had a >>> quick look into the source code. >> >>> The method "FileUtils.writeByteArrayToFile(...)" internally uses the >>> private method "openOutputStream(...)", which creates (after some >>> smart checks) an FileOutputStream. >> >>> But, shouldn't "writeByteArrayToFile(...)" or "openOutputStream(...)" >>> not use/create a BufferedOutputStream, wrapping the FileOutputStream? >> >>> Or do I overlook something? >> >>> I think one should always buffer the bytes when writing to a file... >> >>> Any thoughts? >> >>> Thanks ! > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
