I think we should just ignore it

> Am 12.04.2014 um 21:47 schrieb Jakob Buchgraber <notifications@github.com>:
> 
> In buffer/src/main/java/io/netty/buffer/BipartiteByteBuf.java:
> 
> > +
> > +    public BipartiteByteBuf(ByteBufAllocator alloc, boolean directByDefault, ByteBuf part1, ByteBuf part2) {
> > +        super(Integer.MAX_VALUE);
> > +
> > +        if (alloc == null) {
> > +            throw new NullPointerException("alloc");
> > +        }
> > +
> > +        this.alloc = alloc;
> > +        this.directByDefault = directByDefault;
> > +        leak = leakDetector.open(this);
> > +        part1(part1);
> > +        part2(part2);
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    public BipartiteByteBuf part1(ByteBuf buffer) {
> What about the case where part1.capacity=100, part2.capacity=200 and capacity(100) is called. This would set part2 to null. Should this even be allowed then? What if then capacity(150) is called: Should part2 be populated again? Gesendet von Windows Mail
> …
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.