On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Jitendra KotamrajuLet me send PR draft next week for review. I want all of you spend some time
On 11/26/2012 02:23 PM, Jitendra Kotamraju wrote:I see byte-level access a rather specialized feature, and as not
Can we also discuss this one:I haven't seen much discussion on this. I would like to close this one with
no action. I don't see parsers are operating at byte level so there is no
point in exposing the byte array instead of String. If someone really wants
to do this, they could write a custom provider that extends JsonParser and
provide a custom JsonString that exposes a byte array. So, I don't think it
needs to be in the API.
making sense for this version.
And although it would be possible to return CharSequence
(implementations of which could then implement additional byte-based
interfaces), it just does not seem all that useful to me. Especially
considering that we have deferred other simpler performance-related
-+ Tatu +-
[json-processing-spec users] Re: JSON_PROCESSING_SPEC-1 : Do not require that all content end up in String or char