On 22 October 2013 05:49, Damjan Jovanovic <dam...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:02 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +
>>> + public byte[] getComment() {
>>> + return comment;
>>
>> This is better, but the array can still be modified externally.
>>
>> Might make more sense to convert the array to a String and return that
>> instead - Strings are immutable, but arrays are not.
>> Otherwise perhaps return a copy.
>>
>
> The text encoding for the JPEG COM segment is unspecified, and can be
> anything in practice, including binary data instead of text, so we
> have to return a byte[].
I suggested returning a String because the only usage I found
immediately converted the bytes into a String.
> I am concerned about the performance implications of copying data
> around so much, but guess it's not much data.
Sometimes it may be necessary to pass around arrays, in which case the
mutability needs to be clearly documented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
