Happy to move IO-137 over to post-1.4. Hen
On Jan 9, 2008 1:04 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > +1 to Commons IO 1.4! > > > > On Jan 6, 2008 4:58 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 6, 2008 2:23 AM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
