commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacob Kjome <>
Subject RE: [POLL][VFS] how to resolve relative filenames
Date Sat, 20 Aug 2005 01:31:59 GMT
At 03:22 PM 8/19/2005 -0400, you wrote:
 >> [ ] Use URI style
 >> [X] Keep current behaviour
 >> [X] Minimum jdk 1.4
 >> [ ] Minimum jdk 1.3
 >I think that for a new release, you must provide backwards compatible
 >behavior unless you are fixing an obvious bug.

...if you are supporting an actual official release, of which there aren't 
any for commons-vfs

 >This does not sound like
 >a bug.

Depends on ones point of view.  If the VFS is meant to allow for 
referencing any resource via a URI and it doesn't follow the spec, then it 
is a bug.  If the current behavior was done on purpose and for good 
reasons, then it is arguable that it isn't a bug, even if the reported 
"bad" behavior was unforseen.  I would lean toward the former.

 >If it were up to me, I would release your next version ASAP and then
 >tackle how to provide both behaviors in the best way for a subsequent
 >release. I like the XP mantra: "Release early, release often".

Except when XP'ers become born again and decide that backward compatibility 
is the end all, be all goal.  In fact, if you are worried about it now, you 
will be doubly worried about it after an official release.  If it isn't 
done now, we might as well forget about it because it just won't be done 
because people will have expectations that behavior doesn't change 
significantly from release to release.  If you expect to do it at some 
point, do it now.  Now or never.

[X] Use URI style
[ ] Keep current behaviour
[X ] Minimum jdk 1.4 (unless it is, somehow, possible to keep JDK1.3 
compatibility without too much extra effort)
[ ] Minimum jdk 1.3


 >My 2c,
 >> -----Original Message-----
 >> From: Mario Ivankovits []
 >> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 11:05 AM
 >> To: Jakarta Commons Users List
 >> Subject: [POLL][VFS] how to resolve relative filenames
 >> Hi!
 >> I would like to know how you think VFS should resolve filenames
 >> 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
 >> "file:///my/root/file/any/child/file"
 >> The URI class distinguishes between directory/file for the last
 >> part - no matter if it is really a directory, this will only be
 >> by checking the last "/".
 >> VFS works more like where a child is a child no matter
 >> 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
 >> 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
 >> 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.
 >> Thanks!
 >> ---
 >> Mario
 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
 >> For additional commands, e-mail:
 >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
 >For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message