Mailing-List: contact felix-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of fmeschbe@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.204 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=rLwjnBGD2uEgzOknnu3ubyLIGHK5zCQijwtEjC9LtM19JrUTxNMphVefo8lglliyzrSwzY4X3iFR4g11jNy7pQEY5WllPkMySKICnjQ0n5ErdWXSLtRcmE+R0UiAmLdfYLjKhixWwnwqMw2toht5VRA3Xmo/jaYlZ7f4I4GUbuM=
Message-ID: <ae03024e0606272340w74f6ebb9r572ec72ff2b76bb7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:40:54 +0200
From: "Felix Meschberger" <Felix.Meschberger@day.com>
Sender: fmeschbe@gmail.com
To: felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Non-File based Framework
In-Reply-To: <44A19D00.8000806@ungoverned.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ae03024e0606200056y4f4503caw85c46202560ae40e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4497B4AE.9080900@ungoverned.org>
	 <ae03024e0606200220x5fe56838m87f10854561b9664@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4497C233.4080103@ungoverned.org>
	 <ae03024e0606200333g763f63aeu646a9fb36652836f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4497E133.2040907@ungoverned.org>
	 <ae03024e0606220224kc5fdfdfu1cca04c2349d7cb9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44A19D00.8000806@ungoverned.org>

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
> >>
>