Let's just fix this bug and allow BinaryObjectBuilder re-use.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 3:14 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn
> wrote:
>
> > BinaryObjectBuilder reuse should be allowed, performance is an important
> > point of this mechanism.
> > Cre
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 3:14 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn
wrote:
> BinaryObjectBuilder reuse should be allowed, performance is an important
> point of this mechanism.
> Creating a new builder just to modify a single field is wasteful.
>
> Well-known builders, such as StringBuilder, are reusable.
>
In this
BinaryObjectBuilder reuse should be allowed, performance is an important
point of this mechanism.
Creating a new builder just to modify a single field is wasteful.
Well-known builders, such as StringBuilder, are reusable.
Pavel
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> Serge
Sergey, why not prohibit any reuse of the builder and throw exception right
away?
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Sergey Chugunov
wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Recently I filed a ticket [1] with very simple test where correct usage of
> BinaryObjectBuilder is vague.
>
> The issue boils down to the
Hello folks,
Recently I filed a ticket [1] with very simple test where correct usage of
BinaryObjectBuilder is vague.
The issue boils down to the fact that it is unclear from documentation and
behavior whether reusing of BinaryObjectBuilder is allowed.
Let's discuss here what is the correct beha
