Given that Mutation is going to do an arrayCopy of the Text object you
pass in, I wouldn't be too worried about the overhead of creating a Text
object from a pre-existing byte; however, I see no reason not to make
a Mutation(byte) constructor. Good call.
For completeness, it would probably be smart to add a Mutation(byte
arr, int start, int end) constructor as well and have your
Mutation(byte arr) constructor call Mutation(arr, 0, arr.length).
On 11/12/2012 4:28 PM, David Medinets wrote:
> I was playing around with reversing the order of my keys in Accumulo
> (yes, from the May conversation). After manipulating my key, I had a
> byte array and I needed to create a mutation. But there is no
> constructor for Mutation that accepts a byte array? I had to wrap my
> byte array with a Text object (not very efficient). Is there any
> reason why I should not add a new constructor? Doing so seems
> straightforward and easy.