commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35181] - [net] FTP timestamp: year recognition
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:44:20 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35181>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35181





------- Additional Comments From dfs@apache.org  2005-06-06 21:44 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> having trouble deciding whether it's a good thing or a bad thing to allow for
> "slop", maybe that's a sign that we need a "slop-mode" option in FTPClientConfig
> (probably named differently)?  Perhaps something similar to how
> SimpleDateFormat.isLenient() exists because one size does not fit all?

That sounds like a good compromise.  Every time we've tried to impose
a single way to handle this sort of thing, we always seem to get bitten
by some special case (curse FTP and its unspecified listing output! :).
Letting the API user decide if he wants a looser "slop"-handling
interpretation of dates provides sufficient flexibility
for programmers to work around special cases without forcing the API
to be all-knowing.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message