commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Fortner <phidia...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VFS] Feedback on VFS-422 please
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:10:19 GMT
Gary,
There was some talk a while back about implementing File System-specific
Operations.  I think what Mario had in mind was supporting version control
system functionality through VFS.  It strikes me that this might be the
best way for implementing functionality that makes use of the JSch bells
and whistles without breaking encapsulation.

Regards,

Mark


On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi All:
>
> WRT VFS-422: [SFTP] Allows to create other channels in SftpFileSystem (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-422)
>
> I'll like to solicit feedback from the list on this issue. I've cleaned up
> the proposed patch in the ticket and attached it back to the issue as
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12532940/vfs-422-v2-by-gg.diff
>
> First and foremost is whether this feature should be in VFS at all.
>
> Internally, VFS does not use the feature, so it is a convenience to the
> client application.
>
> A simpler solution from VFS' POV would be to make the Jsch Session object
> accessible via a public getSession() method. The client would then be
> responsible for the resources created and be free to use all of the Jsch
> bells and whistles.
>
> One can argue that this breaks encapsulation and surfaces VFS' private
> parts (pun intended). But because the point of the feature is get to
> another Jsch object (a Channel) through a Session, encapsulation would be
> broken anyway, so this point is moot IMO.
>
> A second issue has to do with implementation of the method
> com.jcraft.jsch.CommonsVFSChannelFactory.createChannel(AtomicLong,
> SftpChannelType)
>
> - Should finalization be used?
> - Should the counts be managed through the connect and disconnect methods
> instead?
> - There is a lot of repeated code in the method, should a delegate/proxy to
> a channel be used instead such that there is no code duplication?
>
> Thank you,
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>

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