On 28 Mar 2001 10:11:57 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Actually, mappers should be used for path modification. I make the >> distinction because they should be applicable to a variety of >> sources (file system, ftp, http, zip, etc.). > >Well, they already do - the map from String to String[]. > >> On 27 Mar 2001 10:42:06 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >>>> * Make all datatypes interfaces to allow them to be customized in >>>> * many ways. >>> >>>Where appropriate, but not all of them. >> >> Which ones do you not like? > >The wrong question IMHO. Which datatypes would benefit from being >interfaces? I see no real reason in the case of <path> for example, >while I might see it in the <fileset> case. >
I guess this a problem I have with Java in general. It makes using interfaces more work. In reality there is a "interface" we are using for <path>. IMO, if someone wants to substitute their own class that supports this API they should be able to without having to change <path> or its callers. >>>> * Homogenize notion of PATHs and filesets. >>> >>>Doesn't always make sense, we need the specific use cases where >>>paths and filesets are interchangeable. >>> >> When are they not? > >When order is important - like Conor and Glenn have already said. A >path is ordered, a fileset is not. > Still, why should that effect the public API? dave
