mapped io for non-default file system
Alan Bateman
Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Mon Jul 1 01:16:24 PDT 2013
On 01/07/2013 08:57, Philippe Marschall wrote:
> Ok, very well. What about AsynchronousFileChannel then? It's the only
> way to do asynchronous file IO and offers the same functionality as
> FileChannel except for #map (although in an asynchronous fashion). So
> unlike FileChannel it can be implemented fully by non-default file
> systems. Is the idea that non-default file systems can implement
> AsynchronousFileChannel but not FileChannel (because they can't
> implement #map) or should they implement neither?
>
The intention is that the provider can support both, either or none. We
included this statement in the javadoc for both of the factory methods
that FileSystemProvider defines:
"A provider that does not support all the features required to construct
a XXX throws UnsupportedOperationException".
Clearly most of the providers that come up will not support either as
it's just not practical (even SeekableByteChannel is a challenge in some
cases).
-Alan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nio-dev/attachments/20130701/44de4fbb/attachment.html
More information about the nio-dev
mailing list