Mark Phippard wrote:
> Daniel Rall <email@example.com> wrote on 07/05/2005 02:12:24 PM:
>>On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 09:07 -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>>You can go ahead and move this to the cc: list.
>>Thanks. Here's a link to the issue for everyone's reference:
>>Committers, please read the issue and comment on this scalability issue.
> I guess no one is going to respond to this. What do you want to do? I
> would suggest you put your change in place and just do your best to break
> it. If it seems to work OK, then we can put it out there and see if any
> problems crop up. It sounds like it is an improvement worth trying.
I'm not sure how I came to be in this conversation, but I am happy to be
here. I think this is similar to an issue I had with the javahl
bindings, where there is a similar limitation of getting a file's
content as a byte array. I have submitted a patch to introduce a
streaming style interface.
The trick to this implementation is not to create a new type of
InputStream but to pass in an OutputStream and allow the javahl JNI
interface to be in control of the streaming, rather than having the
client read the InputStream.
I realize you guys are talking about a Process approach wrapping the
command line tools and it's a little different but I thought I'd add my 2c.
Received on Fri Jul 15 00:49:10 2005