Thanks for the good suggestion Pavel - will look into that - for large
arrays absolutely less costly than copying!
In the general case I would still prefer if the libraries generally
provided offset & length for byte array arguments to allow for "garbage
free" code (i.e. avoiding to frequently cre
Yes, overloads that accepted both source and destination ByteBuffer were there
at some point, but then were removed:
commit 591834e28d482ea6a375ab215958e1635a7b111d
Author: Xueming Shen
Date: Tue Dec 3 17:44:31 2013 -0800
8028397: Undo the lenient MIME BASE64 decoder support change (JDK-8
Upon a closer look, switching to ByteBuffer would only get you 50% towards
where you want to be: the resulting ByteBuffer, whether encoded or decoded, is
*allocated* by the respective methods and then returned as a result rather than
accepted by those methods as a parameter.
> On 14 Dec 2023, a
> On 14 Dec 2023, at 06:10, Magnus wrote:
>
> In the java libraries there are many methods that operate on byte arrays that
> do not allow you to specify offset and length for the relevant data instead
> forcing you to copy the relevant part to new arrays before using the methods
> reducing
