commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gary Gregory" <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com>
Subject RE: [POLL][VFS] how to resolve relative filenames
Date Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:22:07 GMT
> [ ] 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. This does not sound like
a bug.

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".

My 2c,
Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:mario@ops.co.at]
> 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
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 java.net.URI 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
> "file:///my/root/file/any/child/file"
> 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 java.io.File 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.
> 
> Thanks!
> ---
> Mario
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message