commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeffrey Brekke" <ekke...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [vfs] vfs2 or plain wrapper mode
Date Wed, 21 May 2008 13:01:21 GMT
We also have the situation where the directories are also hidden.  So we
need to be able to traverse hidden directories as well.  Sounds like your
solution would work for directories as well, if VFS didn't attempt to
enumerate all the files in all the directories along the path?

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Mario Ivankovits <mario@ops.co.at> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Probably I find some time during the next weekend to fix a long standig
> bug in VFS regarding dealing with hidden or special files.
>
> The main problem I see is that VFS tries to act more like a real
> filesystem than a simple wrapper.
> VFS tries to determine the filetype (FILE, DIR, VIRTUAL) and then throws
> an exception if one tries to open a VIRTUAL file. VFS thinks such a file
> can not exist.
>
> I'd like to change that behavior from a "fail fast" to a "fail lazy"
> one, means, even on VIRTUAL files VFS tries to issue a getInputStream()
> on read. If the underlaying library then throws an exception about
> non-existent files this exception will be converted to a VFS exception.
>
> The internal file-type is then more like a "guess" and might change on
> e.g. getInputStream(). For example, a VIRTUAL file will become a FILE if
> getInputStream() succeeded.
>
> In the end I'd like to make VFS behave more like a wrapper than a real
> filesystem and VFS will pass down each file operation to the underlaying
> library as soon as possible and then normalize the thrown exceptions to
> VFS ones if possible.
>
> As a side-effect it could be possible to disable this filetype
> determination at all (or make it optional) and thus make VFS a lot
> faster e.g. with FTP connections where this operation is really really
> costly.
>
> As far as I can see this will lead to a somehow different behavior of
> VFS than it is today. It should not influence any existing applications,
> but it might.
> So, my questions are:
> * [ ] Do you agree that such an evolution might make sense
> * and if so, should I
> ** [ ] add a VFS-global (static) flag to enable this wrapper-like-mode or
> ** [ ] can I fork VFS to put the current head into maintainance (or more
> correct "dormant") mode and start with e.g. VFS 2.0?
>
> I'd prefer VFS 2.0.
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>



-- 
Jeffrey D. Brekke
Wisconsin, USA

brekke at apache dot org
ekkerbj at gmail dot com
jbrekke at wi dot rr dot com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message