Hi, I'm basically agree to have bytebuffer API. JZMQ application would have more options for their purpose.
And it would be excellent if we have a benchmark result using bytebuffer compared to byte[]. Thanks Min On May 13, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Trevor Bernard <[email protected]> wrote: > In the next couple of days I will be writing a ByteByffer API for JZMQ I > would like to hear the communities thoughts. > > I was thinking of something along the lines of: > > int sendByteBuffer(ByteBuffer bb, int flags); > int recvByteBuffer(ByteBuffer bb, int flags); > int recvByteBuffer(int flags); > > Implementation seems straightforward enough. Though it really only makes > sense to use a Direct ByteBuffer since it's allocated off the heap and can be > passed to libzmq without a copy. Otherwise you'd have to copy the underlying > byte[]. > > So does it make sense to only support a direct bytebuffer? > > Thoughts? > > -Trev > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
