Re: What replaces StringBufferInputStream
Thomas Hawtin wrote:
Chris Uppal wrote:
(Incidentally, part of the problem is the non-symmetry in the existing
names.
"Reader" and "InputStream" do not follow the same grammatical pattern.
While -- as it chances -- you can qualify "Reader" with
"InputStream", the
reverse doesn't sit happily).
There isn't really a particularly good reason to expose the class.
Instead of introducing a new public class, a method would do:
public static InputStream asInputStream(Reader reader, Charset cs)
As Reader is a class, you could even add it as a member.
Although it certainly COULD be done that way, it would be inconsistent
with the general design of java.io.
It might have been better if it were done that way from the start, with
a visible class if, and only if, the new class adds some functionality,
such as a readLine() method.
For example, FileInputStream could have been replaced by a series of get
methods equivalent to its constructors:
public static InputStream fileAsInputStream(File f)
etc.
However, I don't think it is worth breaking the pattern now. To me, an
InputStreamReader sounds like a Reader that reads an InputStream, so I
like the name.
Patricia