Gary Gregory wrote: > The buffer increases performance actually. Its faster to write a file in > 8KB blocks than 1 byte at a time.
As said, we write the bytes *at once* not one by one. Therefore a buffer decreases performance here! - Jörg > > 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]
