Well, we pay O(n) to encode/decode, then O(n) again to copy XMLByte* to XMLCh*. Per Peiyong's explanation, I see now that we've strictly implemented the RFC, then added helper functions to get us to XMLCh*. The copying O(n) is small relative to the encoding O(n), so I think that it makes more sense to stick to the RFC, than to encode directly to/from XMLCh* to XMLByte*, even though we do potentially have to new[] a large region of memory an extra time.
Adam Heinz Development Consultant Exstream Software [EMAIL PROTECTED] 317.879.2831 connecting with the eGeneration www.exstream.com -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Rodriguez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 1:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Base64 efficiency About efficiency I don't know where you would gain efficiency, could you elaborate? You worry about having to treat XMLCh ( a double byte) as a two bytes? But you would have to do that anyway because your data could have one or two bytes. Cheers, Jeff Rodriguez --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
