On 19 Mar 2001 10:23:49 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> While we are on the subject, is there really a reason for the >> excluded and non-included parts of DirectoryScanner? > >I've never seen anybody use it, but it has been there from the start - >so we could potentially break some environments if we'd drop them. >
The problem is I would like to make a nice simple culler interface like shouldInclude. But to support these three layers of "inclusion" I need to have shouldInclude and shouldExclude which really doesn't make sense to me. As a small note, the naming inside DirectoryScanner is not consistent. "filesIncluded" returns files included and not excluded (as opposed to files included). Actually, what I really think is happening is that there needs to be a shouldScan for directories which is what the shouldInclude is really being used for (to avoid descending on directories that can never contain files to match). Then nonIncluded becomes non-scanned, excluded is scanned-but-included and included means scanned-and-included. Maybe do this and keep the old APIs for backwards comparability? d
