felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Felix Meschberger" <Felix.Meschber...@day.com>
Subject Re: Non-File based Framework
Date Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:40:54 GMT
Hi Richard,

Thanks for the feedback. I am looking forward to your comments.

Enjoy ApacheCon!

Regards
Felix

On 6/27/06, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> 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
> >>
>

Mime
View raw message