commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mario Ivankovits <>
Subject [POLL][VFS] how to resolve relative filenames
Date Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:05:11 GMT

I would like to know how you think VFS should resolve filenames relative 
to another filename.

There is a request to change VFS's current behaviour.

Consider the following root: "file:///my/root/file" and this relative 
filename "any/child/file"

currently VFS resolve it to "file:///my/root/file/any/child/file"

Compared to this is "wrong".
The URI class resolves to "file:///my/root/any/child/file" (notice the 
missing "file" part) as long as the root filename will not end with an "/"
e.g the example above with root "file:///my/root/file/" will resolve to 
The URI class distinguishes between directory/file for the last filename 
part - no matter if it is really a directory, this will only be detected 
by checking the last "/".

VFS works more like where a child is a child no matter what 
type the root-name is.

If we go the URI way any new VFS release will be paused for some weeks 
AND it breaks your application if you use the a relative filename stuff 
without a trailing "/" for the rootname.
Maybe some other disadvantages follow as I cant fully analyze all 
changes needed.

Also please state your minimum jdk requirements. If we go the URI way I 
would like to know if we could swap to java's URI at all (if possible 
... needs some deeper anlayze too)

[ ] Use URI style
[ ] Keep current behaviour
[ ] Minimum jdk 1.4
[ ] Minimum jdk 1.3

I have to admit I would stick on the current behaviour as it is less 
work ;-), but I really would like to hear (read) what you think.


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

View raw message