On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 01:41:56PM -0800, David Rees wrote:
> I would have concerns about moving the match code
I left behind stub versions of the DirectoryScanner.matchPath and
.matchPatternStart static methods, that delegate to the versions
in Pattern. I didn't leave behind a stub match() because that's
not called from anyplace, and probably shouldn't be.
> and especially about
> changing includes/excludes in DirectoryScanner.
I didn't move this stuff -- fields or methods. There are a few
minor changes like:
- protected String[] includes;
+ protected Pattern[] includes;
which requires:
- this.includes = new String[includes.length];
+ this.includes = new Pattern[includes.length];
and:
- this.includes[i] = pattern;
+ this.includes[i] = new Pattern(pattern);
but the inclusion/exclusion *logic* is completely unchanged; I
only moved the stuff that, independent of any context, answers
the question, "does filename F match pattern P?"
> A lot of various
> things in Ant reference it (as I discovered when I tried to move it
> ;).
FWIW, in order to make ant compile with my changes, the only
other file that needed to be touched was types/ZipScanner.java,
and that was again just trivial initialization stuff like the
above (making it call "super.setIncludes()" instead of poking the
"includes" field itself).
> Couldn't you just apply your patch to the existing methods?
No. Or at least, not at all cleanly! Without the refactoring,
there's no place to store isSimpleFilename -- without some gory
hack like keeping arrays of booleans parallel to "includes" and
"excludes", which I agree with you would be very dangerous.
> As a side note, I think a major performance improvement would come
> from caching the pattern arrays. Right now DS parses the pattern
> strings every time a match call is made.
Quite possibly. This would also be much easier/cleaner/safer to
do in a factored-out Pattern class than in code that's jumbled in
with DirectoryScanner...
--
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| | /
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea.
- RFC 1925 (quoting an unnamed source)
