felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: Non-File based Framework
Date Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:02:56 GMT
Hey Felix,

FYI: I am at ApacheCon right now and will take a look at this next week 
after I return...just didn't want you to think that I was ignoring it.

-> richard

Felix Meschberger wrote:
> HI again,
> Based upon your recommendations, I tried to implement the abstract
> BundleCache and BundleArchive strategy as a prototype.
> I have not cleaned it up properly and there is in fact one problem
> with it: The BundleArchive constructors initiliaze the instances. When
> extending the BundleArchive for storage dependent implementations, the
> constructors of the base class do not yet know anything about the
> storage, but initialization depends on the storage. My solution is to
> introduce an init() method, which initializes and ist called by the
> BundleCache.
> I do not like this implementation very much as it kind of transfers
> responsibility for additional intialization to the caller. But in the
> short time, I did not come up with a better solution.
> I attach the patch for this prototype along with the File based 
> implementation.
> What do you think: Could this be a way to go ? Should I post a Jira 
> issue ?
> Regards and Thanks
> Felix, the person :-)
> On 6/20/06, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>> Felix Meschberger wrote:
>> > On 6/20/06, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>> >> In general, any solution for doing stuff like you have suggested, I
>> >> would hope, should concentrate on using/improving these existing
>> >> mechanisms rather than creating new ones.
>> >
>> > I definitely agree. Yet not being able to ammend BundleCache and
>> > BundleArchive, I am still required to have file system space - this
>> > sort of worries me.
>> This is the sort of stuff that we can improve upon then. I am not
>> against making it once again possible to be able configure which
>> implementation of BundleCache to use. It was just removed because I had
>> no valid use case. We just need to discuss what is needed and how to 
>> do it.
>> -> richard

View raw message