commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release
Date Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:04:32 GMT
OK looks like were nearly ready for IO 1.4 release - theres a minor
issue to resolve on IO-77[1] so that just leaves IO-137[2] to decide
whether we're going to do anything about for 1.4 or move it to
post-1.4 - Henri and Jukka expressed interest on IO-137 - do you guys
want to / have time to look at this?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-77
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-137

Niall

On Jan 6, 2008 7:05 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 to Commons IO 1.4!
>
> On Jan 6, 2008 4:58 AM, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 2008 2:23 AM, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think we should deal with IO-137 as it's a minor enhancement and
> > > comes with tests. I'll volunteer to look at that.
> >
> > I looked at this a while back and using the baos buffers directly in
> > an InputStream raises a safety issue (if the baos is modified while
> > the InputStream is being read) - do we care about that?
>
> I kind of agree. I was thinking about proposing a "copy on write" flag
> to reset() that would start with a new set of buffers when there are
> InputStreams reading from the same buffers, but that seems too complex
> to me.
>
> Apart from that, I like the general idea in IO-137 (it's similar to my
> readFrom() proposal) so I'd like to see it in 1.4 if there's a
> consensus on what form the feature should take. I'm willing to invest
> some time to work out the details.
>
> > > IO-51 has tests, so worth a look at if that can be done before the
> > > others are resolved. ie) punt to post-1.4 iff it's the last one left.
> >
> > I had a brief look and my initial thought was the Limiter should just
> > be doing the throttling and the reading/writing should be in the
> > input/output implementations - but I haven't looked in detail.
>
> I looked at IO-51 a few months ago, and came to the same conclusion.
> The implementation isn't too modular and probably too complex (i.e.
> could be done with less code). Of course I didn't have time to come up
> with an alternative implementation.
>
> I like the feature though, and I have some use cases where it would
> come in handy, but I think it's better to improve the Limiter API
> before the feature gets released.
>
> > IO-148 is done from my PoV - I left it open in case anyone wanted to
> > object to me renaming it today. If Gary and Jukka are happy then we
> > can mark it as fixed.
>
> I'm happy.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message