mthornton at optrak.co.uk
Mon Oct 6 06:48:50 PDT 2008
Elliotte Harold wrote:
> I think named attributes need to be reduced to a simple String name
> and an Object or String (probably Object) value. ByteBuffers simply
> should not be in the picture here. I guess you have ByteBuffers on the
> brain because of all the other work you're doing with them, but
> they're not a common or comfortable API for this sort of work. Nor
> are they necessary. I think if you treat the NamedAttributeView as a
> map, it will be much simpler, cleaner, and more effective.
What sort of data do you expect to find in named attributes? NTFS
alternate data streams could contain anything and would usually be binary.
More information about the nio-discuss