filechannel

(This is related to (or rather the "opposite" of) Would FileChannel.read read less bytes than specified if there's enough data? ) TL;DR : Will this always write the whole buffer... ByteBuffer bytes = ...; fileOutputStream.getChannel().write(bytes); ...or is it necessary to use a loop like this: ByteBuffer bytes = ...; while (bytes.remaining() > 0) { fileOutputStream.getChannel().write(bytes); } ? Due to a comment in another answer , I'd like to ask whether there are any guarantees regarding the behavior of writing a Buffer to a FileChannel by calling FileChannel#write(ByteBuffer) . Just for

I am really in trouble: I want to read HUGE files over several GB using FileChannel s and MappedByteBuffer s - all the documentation I found implies it's rather simple to map a file using the FileChannel.map() method. Of course there is a limit at 2GB as all the Buffer methods use int for position, limit and capacity - but what about the system implied limits below that? In reality, I get lots of problems regarding OutOfMemoryException s! And no documentation at all that really defines the limits! So - how can I map a file that fits into the int-limit safely into one or several

My application uses Java class RandomAccessFile to read/write bytes to a file on SD card randomly by means of realization of SeekableByteChannel interface. Now I need rewrite it for Android 5.0 with new Lollipop API. I have found the only way to read: InputStream inputStream = getContentResolver().openInputStream(uri); and write: ParcelFileDescriptor pfd = getActivity().getContentResolver().openFileDescriptor(uri, "w"); FileOutputStream fileOutputStream = new FileOutputStream(pfd.getFileDescriptor()); from/to a file in new API. I would like to have an ability to set channel in some random

I'm working on something that uses ByteBuffers built from memory-mapped files (via FileChannel.map() ) as well as in-memory direct ByteBuffers. I am trying to understand the concurrency and memory model constraints. I have read all of the relevant Javadoc (and source) for things like FileChannel, ByteBuffer, MappedByteBuffer, etc. It seems clear that a particular ByteBuffer (and relevant subclasses) has a bunch of fields and the state is not protected from a memory model point of view. So, you must synchronize when modifying state of a particular ByteBuffer if that buffer is used across