Re: Buffer/String split, take2

Kinkie wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Tsantilas Christos
> <chtsanti_at_users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I believe that the D&C design is better than Universal Buffer because of
>> many reasons. My sense is that the Universal Buffer will be very complex and
>> will not have the desired results, because the real problems exist in other
>> subsystems (eg parsers).
>>
>> But if choosing the D&C design means that we are going to wait for 2 or more
>> years to be implemented because of the lack of the development time maybe
>> it is better to accept the Universal Buffer design. It will not solve all
>> the problems but it is not bad, it is an improvement.
>>
>> But again I like the idea of a well designed Buffers Api, where buffer
>> classes handle different cases and String be a class (or classes) which
>> operates on Buffer (sub-)regions.
>
> The need to avoid data copying and the numerous xstrndup()s we have
> laying around is in any case the key win to this.
OK.

> The discussion on the topic went ahead on IRC yesterday. I've updated
> the wiki to include it, please see
> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/MeetUps/IrcMeetup-2009-01-17.
>

Long but very interested discussions :-). It remains to see the StringNg
in practice!
Received on Thu Jan 22 2009 - 17:24:23 MST