From: Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, I'm quite interested in what the response is to having this in
the API. It's novel (for me), but could be interesting to release IO
as is and see what feedback we get from users on the feature.
That would seem rather irresponsible. They will almost
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 21:37 -0800, Henri Yandell wrote:
Yeah, I'm quite interested in what the response is to having this in
the API. It's novel (for me), but could be interesting to release IO
as is and see what feedback we get from users on the feature.
My $0.02: I'm quite happy with an
Niall Pemberton wrote on Friday, January 12, 2007 1:44 AM:
On 1/12/07, James Carman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but this doesn't seem like a very good argument to me - on
this basis you could argue against the whole existance of IO - since
it provides stuff thats not in the JDK
I don't
On 1/12/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, I'm quite interested in what the response is to having this in
the API. It's novel (for me), but could be interesting to release IO
as is and see what feedback we get from users on the feature.
Yes, I'm -0 really. As I said, I don't really care one way or the
other. I just wanted to voice my opinion that it looks weird to me
and we should be aware of that (not that it looks weird to me in
particular, but that it could look weird to others). I know that when
I look into a library I
Henri Yandell wrote:
So consensus so far seems to be towards leaving it in.
Well I'll remove my vote -1 then. But I still think its poor design.
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
On 1/9/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This helps with naming, but without the scoping, you're left with the
Javadocs as the only way to specify that the exception is intended to be
used only within the DirectoryWalker class. Of course,
Sorry, but this doesn't seem like a very good argument to me - on
this basis you could argue against the whole existance of IO - since
it provides stuff thats not in the JDK
I don't know if I agree with this point, Niall. The stuff that's in
IO wasn't left out of the JDK because of coding
On 1/11/07, James Carman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but this doesn't seem like a very good argument to me - on
this basis you could argue against the whole existance of IO - since
it provides stuff thats not in the JDK
I don't know if I agree with this point, Niall. The stuff that's in
On 1/12/07, James Carman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but this doesn't seem like a very good argument to me - on
this basis you could argue against the whole existance of IO - since
it provides stuff thats not in the JDK
I don't know if I agree with this point, Niall. The stuff that's in
IO
On 1/12/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/12/07, James Carman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but this doesn't seem like a very good argument to me - on
this basis you could argue against the whole existance of IO - since
it provides stuff thats not in the JDK
I don't know
I can see the elegance of the design. Personally, I don't really care
one way or the other if you release with that in there. I do think,
however, that you should consider the normal developer out there who
probably hasn't seen something like this before. I've done a lot of
coding in my days
Yeah, I'm quite interested in what the response is to having this in
the API. It's novel (for me), but could be interesting to release IO
as is and see what feedback we get from users on the feature.
Hen
On 1/11/07, James Carman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see the elegance of the design.
On 1/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/07, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
Could you say more about this, please? I happen to
On 1/9/07, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
Probably because you're not used to the inner class way. ;-)
Yep. Habits are bad things to get into.
This helps with naming, but without the scoping, you're left with the
Javadocs as
From: Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This helps with naming, but without the scoping, you're left with the
Javadocs as the only way to specify that the exception is intended to be
used only within the DirectoryWalker class. Of course, a public static inner
class can be used elsewhere as
Martin Cooper wrote:
Could you say more about this, please? I happen to disagree on
exceptions as
inner classes being a bad idea; FileUpload has done this for years, without
any problems. But I'm always interested in hearing new perspectives...
I guess its stylistic, and therefore subjective.
On 1/8/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
Could you say more about this, please? I happen to disagree on
exceptions as
inner classes being a bad idea; FileUpload has done this for years, without
any problems. But I'm always interested in hearing new
On 1/8/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
Could you say more about this, please? I happen to disagree on
exceptions as
inner classes being a bad idea; FileUpload has done this for years,
without
any problems. But I'm always interested in hearing new
On 1/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
Could you say more about this, please? I happen to disagree on
exceptions as
inner classes being a bad idea; FileUpload has done this for years,
without
any
On 1/8/07, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/8/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
Could you say more about this, please? I happen to disagree on
exceptions as
inner classes being a bad
On 1/9/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
} catch( DirectoryWalker.CancellationException ce) {
Consider importing CancellationException and not or not only
DirectoryWalker. :-)
Jochen
--
My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
once have we had an argument
22 matches
Mail list logo
