On 10/30/16, 7:26 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>FWIW, I don’t think it makes sense to implement >readObject,writeObject,inflate and deflate in the core class the way >Flash ByteArray has it. It will require a lot of code as dependencies. It >probably makes more sense to have utility classes for this functionality >to make it “pay as you go”. Good point about the dependencies. It occurs to me that PAYG might be better implemented as subclasses of a ByteArray/BinaryData that doesn't support the objects and compression. Or else you will have to cheat because I would guess that the implementation shouldn't have to call writeByte/readByte and should just have access to the underlying bytes. So, a org.apache.flex.utils.ByteArray may only support simple types, and a org.apache.flex.utils.AMFByteArray could support AMF encode/decode via readObject/writeObject. -Alex
