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

Checksum Support for ReadOnlySpan<byte> #841

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ds5678
Copy link

@ds5678 ds5678 commented Aug 7, 2023

I added support for hashing byte spans. The only breaking change in my pull request is adding IChecksum.Update(ReadOnlySpan<byte>).

I certify that I own, and have sufficient rights to contribute, all source code and related material intended to be compiled or integrated with the source code for the SharpZipLib open source product (the "Contribution"). My Contribution is licensed under the MIT License.

@lahma
Copy link
Contributor

lahma commented Aug 13, 2023

Just a thought, as this is anyway breaking the interface and requiring new implementation. Would it make sense to only support Update(ReadOnlySpan<byte> buffer) and change this in new version (1.5?). This interface looks like something that not many rely upon directly.

@ds5678
Copy link
Author

ds5678 commented Aug 13, 2023

The interface is unimportant to me. I only changed it for completeness. Whatever the maintainers want is ok with me.

If breaking changes were being fully embraced, I would remove the array and array segment overloads. I assumed that binary compatibility was important to maintain, so I did not remove those.

@lahma
Copy link
Contributor

lahma commented Aug 14, 2023

Yes, it's maintainer's call, I think it already fails binary compatibility by adding a new method that old implementations don't implement.

@ds5678
Copy link
Author

ds5678 commented Aug 14, 2023

I think it already fails binary compatibility by adding a new method that old implementations don't implement.

This is true, and I said as such in my initial message, but it's a much smaller breaking change than removing a bunch of redundant methods.

@piksel
Copy link
Member

piksel commented Aug 17, 2023

Yeah, avoiding breaking changes is one of the guiding principles for maintaining the library, and this PR currently lacks the motivation for the change.

It should be a fairly exotic use case for a consumer to implement their own CRC, so I think a breaking change could be acceptable here, but there needs to be a reason for doing so.

@ds5678
Copy link
Author

ds5678 commented Aug 17, 2023

Motivation for the overall PR

It enables library users to reduce their allocations, resulting in significant performance gains.

Motivation for adding a span overload to the interface

Anyone not using the checksum classes directly, will not benefit from the performance gains of using spans.

Motivation for removing the redundant overloads

It simplifies the codebase and is a source-compatible change. If spans had been always been supported, these overloads would have never existed.

@ds5678
Copy link
Author

ds5678 commented Nov 6, 2023

@piksel What do you want me to do?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants