tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <devli...@hanik.com>
Subject Re: Bug in B2C converter WAS: svn commit: r568307 - /tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/buf/B2CConverter.java
Date Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:07:56 GMT
Costin Manolache wrote:
> On 3/3/08, Remy Maucherat <remm@apache.org> wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 15:58 -0700, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>>       
>>>> This problem is a small detail. Much more should be done if you want
>>>>         
>> to
>>     
>>>> do a refactoring: both the mark functionality and readLine need to
>>>>         
>> have
>>     
>>>> direct access to the buffer to be able to be coded in a sane way (and
>>>>         
>> be
>>     
>>>> more efficient too).
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> yes, so the question is for 6.0.x and 5.5.x, do we wanna proceed down
>>> the refactor route?
>>> I was against it in the beginning for the fear of regression. I
>>> personally think the whole bytechunk/charchunk thing is very complex,
>>> and can be done easier, but that is something I would play around in
>>> sandbox, and eventually bring into trunk if it was working.
>>>       
>> I am not really interested in participating. Besides some possible
>> simple cleanup, CharChunk is actually too simple rather than too complex
>> (ByteChunk is just fine, and doesn't need additional features): to
>> improve, it would need to get mark capabilities and (unfortunately) get
>> a readLine (it's even more problematic to implement it outside the
>> class). I am pretty sure using the NIO buffers will be proposed for some
>> reason, which are horrible to use as far as I am concerned.
>>     
>
> I think the byte->char conversion should be cleaned, the InputStream hack
> was
> needed 9 years ago because regular conversion sucked and we couldn't use
> the
> convertors directly. I've seen quite a few other projects doing the
> conversion
> themself at least for UTF8 and 8859-1.
>   
no one disagrees with that. It's just that 5.5.x and 6.0.x is not the 
place for that cleanup.
> Regarding using NIO buffers - I agree with Remy,  the flip()s are horrible,
> I think
> there is a version in sandbox that replaces byte[] with the ByteBuffers, and
> it doesn't
> seem to be worth it.
> However I think it would be just great to start making a distinction between
> 'buffer' and
> 'pointer to a buffer' - IMO that's the main cause of complexity. 
absolutely.
> And maybe
> add
> 'implements CharSequence, Appendable' to make the coyote classes more
> friendly for
> direct use.
>
>
>   
>> for 6.0.x and 5.5.x, I'd rather keep the fixes to the actual bug fix to
>>     
>>> maintain stability
>>>       
>> There's no way this sort of work could be good for these branches.
>>     
>
> Since I'm quite out of sync - what is the current 'dev branch' and is there
> any
> 'some API changes allowed' release planned ?
> Costin
>
>
> Rémy
>   
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>>
>>     
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
>> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.3/1307 - Release Date: 3/2/2008 3:59 PM
>>     


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


Mime
View raw message