[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance
From: |
strk |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance |
Date: |
Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:46:48 +0200 |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:22:55AM +0200, Udo Giacomozzi wrote:
> Anyway, you get the idea. See why I think a extra class is
> unnecessary?
I still see it as a facility. The stream will just setup the buffer
for the BitsReader, knowing size of each tag..
Note that the users which are NOT willing to cache are tipically users
that will cache themselves. I'm currently preparing work to expand
their interfaces to accept a pre-made cache for reading.
In that case, the stream (or BitsReader) should provide a pointer to the
underlying buffer.
--strk;
- Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, (continued)
- Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, strk, 2007/08/27
- Re[2]: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, Udo Giacomozzi, 2007/08/27
- Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, strk, 2007/08/27
- Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, strk, 2007/08/27
- Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, strk, 2007/08/27
- Re[2]: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, Udo Giacomozzi, 2007/08/27
- Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, strk, 2007/08/27
- Re[2]: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, Udo Giacomozzi, 2007/08/28
- Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, strk, 2007/08/28
- Re[2]: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, Udo Giacomozzi, 2007/08/28
- Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance,
strk <=
- Re[2]: [Gnash-dev] Re: Bitwise stream reading performance, Udo Giacomozzi, 2007/08/28