Review/comment needed for the new public java.util.Base64 class

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at
Thu Oct 18 14:43:44 UTC 2012

On 18/10/2012 03:10, Xueming Shen wrote:
> Hi
> Webrev has been updated with following changes
> (1) added a pair of en/decode(ByteBuffer src, ByteBuffer dst) methods
> (2) some minor spec clarification regarding the "end of decoding"
> (3) performance tuning.
> webrev:
> some performance scores:
> -Sherman
Have you done any performance tuning on the new methods that 
encode/decode into an existing ByteBuffer? Just wondering as the direct 
buffer case seems more expensive that I would expect. It would be 
interesting to see using the put(int,byte) and fixing up the position at 
the end would help. It might also be something to look at with the 
compiler folks.

In any case, I think encode(ByteBuffer,ByteBuffer,int) looks reasonable 
and just requires using the idiom to get it right. I'm less sure about 
decode returning a boolean. Shouldn't it be an error if there are bytes 
remaining after the = padding? I'm just looking for ways to allow the 
method return an int to indicate the number of bytes written to the 
output buffer (and realize that we aren't going to get symmetry with the 
encode method).


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list