Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Back to contributing to Commons Imaging
To: <dev@commons.apache.org>
References: <CAJm2B-kT-Czp_XVODiPjXrt=UeVTnKxGWS7fDxTaXu7YSE8vBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB917RJOPV5XiCMS2gWRrD8Ptt5gqZHJKTkF5+WB-pbC7M3nEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOGo0VYCjFpq_gSCh7iVeu4oZgRkrW3bGGt8km3Eg+fRVk6ATg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amedee Van Gasse <amedee.vangasse@itextpdf.com>
Message-ID: <93a36e98-7f43-2145-913d-84972d23829c@itextpdf.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 08:47:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOGo0VYCjFpq_gSCh7iVeu4oZgRkrW3bGGt8km3Eg+fRVk6ATg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: itextpdf.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2016 06:47:09.3348 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0501MB2218
archived-at: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 06:47:22 -0000

Op 03-09-16 om 15:29 schreef sebb:
> On 3 September 2016 at 13:14, Benedikt Ritter <britter@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi Damjan,
>>
>> nice you're back. I think there is only one thing left before 1.0 can ne
>> released and that is the findbugs violations. They are mainly about
>> exposure of internal state because the public API accepts byte arrays as
>> input parameter. An easy way to fix this would be to copy the arrays. But I
>> think that would be very bad for Performance...
>
> On the other hand, if the existing API is kept, it's not going to be
> possible to easily change the design without breaking compatibility.
>
> The more internal state is exposed, the harder it is to change code in
> the future.
> And the harder it is to fully test the code.
>
> I've not looked at the code recently, but would it be possible to wrap
> the byte array in an object, and only provide access via methods?
>
> It would be fairly easy to replace individual entry reads and writes
> with getters and setters, but that might be too expensive for some
> operations.
> Depending on how many other such operations there are it might be
> possible to provide other methods for them.
>
>> Regards,
>> Benedikt

As an actual user of Commons Imaging, I'd like to chime in and say: make 
those changes and break compatibility now.

-- 
Amedee Van Gasse
QA Engineer | iText Software BVBA
amedee.vangasse@itextpdf.com
http://itextpdf.com

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