commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Philippe Poulard <>
Subject Re: [VFS] VFS.getManager().getFilesCache() - exists() vs findFiles()
Date Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:49:25 GMT
Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> Philippe Poulard wrote:
>> these attributes are tightly coupled to this scheme
>> so if you have "xmldb:provider://..." somewhere, you also have 
>> attribute settings beside
>> thus, when you make the switch from xmldb to -say- ftp, this includes 
>> to clean attributes becoming irrelevant
> Is it possible to separate those attributes into
> * filesystem attributes
> * file attributes
> ?
> I ask as e.g. the "cluster" sounds more like a configuration per 
> filesystem instance.

    this is not the xmldb scheme, as recommended by XML:DB

the same provider may act on several clusters, but in some 
circumstances, it is not needed ; so we could have :

it's a pain to add such a layer :(

> VFS currently supports such filesystem attributes and one thing we can 
> do here is to register a virtual scheme to a set of filesystem attributes:
> say:
> xmldbRaweb2004:xyl://
> would point to the scheme "xmldb" with the desired filesystem attributes 
> attached.
> For the "file attributes" I will take some time to think about them.
> What if we create a new method "FileObject.createFile(Map attributes)"?
> That way there is no need to change the contract of the IMAGINARY file 
> type and it makes clear that if you would like to create a new file with 
> special attributes you have to call that method.

in this case, because of the particularity of all this stuff, it will be 
more suitable to override the getAttributes() method (or another, i will 
look the code) to perform the operation without checking the file type


           (. .)
|   Philippe Poulard    |

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message