Hi William,

Sorry for the delay, but I had to take a look in the current codebase
first - to be honest, I'm not familiar with a lot of internal Cactus
stuff (most code was created by Vincent).

So, here are some comments...

On 4/24/06, William Ferguson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I have had to provide an exploded implementation of the EarArchive,
> WarArchive and JarArchive to allow the EarParser to handle an exploded

Makes sense, cool!

> deployment. Currently they implement the Cactus interfaces as this is
> what is required to allow integration into EarParser.

How exactly would EarParser use the new classes? I mean, currently the
parse() method instantiate a DefaultEarArchive; would you be creating
a new method that takes the EarArchive as parameter and refactor the
current method to call the new one?

> 1) Submit as is, in which case when the Cargo integration is completed,
> they must be enhanced and converted such that they implement the cargo
> interfaces.

This should be the easiest option, but...

> 2) Change them to implement the Cargo interfaces now, but this means
> that EarParser (WarParser should be changed too) would have to rely on
> the Cargo implementations.

If you are concerning with Cactus depending on Cargo jars, that's fine
- that dependency already exists.

> I am not sure that this wouldn't break something else.

Me neither. But if it doesn't break the test cases, then in theory it
should be fine :-)

> It would also be better to have done this in another  changeset than the one 
> I have for 238.

You mean implementing them as option 1 first (and closing 238) and
later doing the refactor to use Cargo?

> Which path would you prefer I follow?

I prefer path 2 because it would be the best option in the long term.
But as the Cargo integration is not ready yet, path 1 might be a wiser
choice...

> Also, I have the doco and a testcase ready to go.

Great, these are the most important pieces of the puzzle ;-)

> So whenever you give me feedback on above I should be able to submit a
> patch containing the lot.

Ok, sorry again for the delay...


-- Felipe

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to