Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support printing to arbitrary Writers #537

merged 3 commits into from Jan 9, 2017


Copy link

@travisbrown travisbrown commented Jan 7, 2017

Addresses #536. In addition to the new prettyBytes I've made a few other small changes that simplify things a bit and seem to give us a few percent more throughput in the benchmarks.

I'm not currently exposing the ability for users to print to their own Appendables. I'm not totally opposed to the idea, but I'd prefer not to add methods that are fundamentally about mutation unless there's a really clear need.

Copy link

codecov-io commented Jan 7, 2017

Current coverage is 82.67% (diff: 100%)

Merging #537 into master will increase coverage by 0.45%

@@             master       #537   diff @@
  Files            70         70          
  Lines          1974       2014    +40   
  Methods        1828       1874    +46   
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches        146        140     -6   
+ Hits           1623       1665    +42   
+ Misses          351        349     -2   
  Partials          0          0          

Powered by Codecov. Last update a8a5268...b704b89

printJsonAtDepth(writer)(json, 0)

Copy link

@vkostyukov vkostyukov Jan 8, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wish we could avoid copying here. Even though there is no API to retrieve the underlying buffer directly, people seem to use this simple trick to do that. Please, note that this means we'd need to change the return type to ByteBuffer since the underlying Array[Byte] may contain more bytes than we need so we have to crop it.

I think we can also expose that as a standalone method (printByteBuffer) if we're worried about this extra complexity. What do you think @travisbrown?

Copy link
Member Author

travisbrown commented Jan 8, 2017

Ah, good point, @vkostyukov. I've just pushed an update—what do you think?

Copy link

vkostyukov commented Jan 9, 2017

Looks great! I really like how simple EnhancedByteArrayOutputStream could be.

@travisbrown travisbrown merged commit 519038b into master Jan 9, 2017
4 checks passed
Copy link
Member Author

travisbrown commented Jan 9, 2017

Ugh, was just running Scala.js tests for the 0.7.0-M2 release and get this:

[error] Referring to non-existent method<init>(
[error]   called from io.circe.Printer.prettyByteBuffer(io.circe.Json)java.nio.ByteBuffer

I guess we'll have to make this a JVM-only method—I'll get started on that asap.

@travisbrown travisbrown deleted the topic/writer-printer branch Apr 20, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
None yet

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants