-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 198
PR change the location of bytebuf modification methods from PacketWrapper to a seperate exposed API #860
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
base: 2.0
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
PR Is not yet complete, this is just an example of how the API would be introduced to packetevents |
When will this be added? |
It's not complete, and it's still marked as a draft? |
Pr back to being actively worked on |
return type.read(this); | ||
} | ||
|
||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@retrooper Do you think these should be kept as methods in here or static BinaryBufferType<?> creation methods. Same with map and collection and primitive arrays with varint size prefix
This PR aims to replace the PacketWrapper#readSomething and PacketWrapper#writeSomething with a more scalable and convenient API. Seperating types and no longer depending on Object for everything in PacketWrapper that is meant to be ByteBuf (kinda)