commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niklas Gustavsson <nik...@protocol7.com>
Subject Re: [exec] vision for the library
Date Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:37:07 GMT
Hi

Your mail was very insightful! I'm going to focus on a few points and 
will probably get back on other parts later.

jerome lacoste wrote:

[snip]

> There's a certain legacy in the current commons-exec and it shows a
> lot. The main issue is the following: commons-exec as today was
> written to solve a particular problem within ant and not as a reusable
> library. In particular, reusing it forces any client to reuse many
> classes that a client should not necessarily care about. In comparison
> ProcessBuilder (SDK 5.0) (which solves only a small subset of what
> commons-exec solves), is much cleaner in its approach. It relies much
> more on SDK classes: no need for a CommandLine class, no need for an
> Environment class, etc...

Agreed. Like you, I think we can do a lot of work on getting exec into a 
cleaner state by refactoring the current code.

[snip]

> Vision & architecture:
> ---------------------------
> - Execute (or Executor?): Flexible, we use it to tie together the
> various concepts in the execute() call (stream management, process
> management, process building, etc...)
> - Exec (or ??) makes it easy to use Execute/or.

I think we should aim for removing Exec and instead focus on getting the 
other classes, particulary Execute, easy enough to use without having a 
helper class like Exec.

> Detailed changes:
> -------------------------
> EnvironmentVariable. Too bad there's no real interface for key/value
> container in SDK (apart from Map.Entry whose definition makes me want
> to avoid using it outside of a Map). Otherwise I would have scrapped
> it...

I think we can scrap it anyways.

> Environment. 1st remove Process Environment out. It's got nothing to
> do in there. Environment becomes mainly practical for clients who
> already use the EnvironmentVariable as for internal building of the
> ProcessEnvironment class. So let's make it a Map so that users don't
> need it to use the other classes. Also make it map key->value instead
> of key->(key, value)

Agreed.

> ProcessEnvironment: We don't need a real class. What is the most
> needed is a getenv() call that builds an Environment (like
> System.getenv()). Could maybe just return a Map. But I don't see an
> issue with returning the Environment itself which maybe helps us. We
> see that as implementation goes.

Agreed. Where would you like to put the method for retriving the current 
environment?

[snip]

> We regard to my other patches, they can be discarded if we go for a
> rewrite (through refactorings). Trygve: in particular the serializable
> patch is not critical. Was just there to maintain the functionality of
> the old API, as I thought it as critical as that time I started
> looking at the project.

Would it be possible to break your refactorings down into a set of 
patches that each fix on of the issues you outlined above?

> I don't mind this process taking several months as long as there's a
> good feedback from the potential users. I am not in a hurry to finish,
> just in a hurry to get started :)

Again, agreed :-)

/niklas


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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