Re: Jython buffer protocol

Jeff Allen

On 06/08/2014 02:28, Stefan Richthofer wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I just quickly scanned the changes and everything looks fine as far as I see. PyByteArray and BaseBytes may need adjustments too (on this occasion remember to add resizeCheck() in irepeat).
Thanks for looking that over. I was rather asking whether the use case 
was served adequately by the addition of PyBUF.AS_ARRAY, hasArray() and 
getNIOByteBuffer(), since you obviously have a clear idea of it.

I took a second/third look but didn't find anything to change in 
BaseBytes and PyByteArray: when arguments objects have the Buffer API 
they are accessed through the abstract API (not as byte[]). PyByteArray 
obviously can support AS_ARRAY, and that seems to be covered in 
SimpleBuffer.

I fixed the irepeat bug in the previous change set: it's a distinct 
issue, so it gets its own change set. Thanks for spotting.
> I know there would be careful thinking needed on how to design such intermediate layer and it would be a drastic change of the current API. I just wanted to make you aware of this idea. Maybe one could approach this in Jython 3 or so, or work out a minimal implementation of it, being open for more advanced use in the future.
>
I think it would make sense to have a layer below BaseBytes that 
contained all those mechanisms that work without assuming a byte[] 
storage. This would help you implement PyBuffer in an object unable to 
export a byte[]. That wouldn't change the API and is likely harmless to 
efficiency. But more radical ideas, I agree, need more careful thought. 
(The present design has had a lot of thought.)

Jeff

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls. 
Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk