Re: Defining Source Interfaces

[Nicola Ken Barozzi]

Sylvain Wallez wrote:

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

Sylvain Wallez wrote:

[...]

You're totally on track. If you need this action right now, I would suggest to mimic what's in the DirectoryGenerator, that makes the assumption that the Source is a file. You can then use all the facilities given by File.

And we only argue, if this support should belong to the Source interface
or too an optional extension interface where I always have to do an instanceof to see if the source has childs or not.

:)

It's nice when discussions are about where to put something new, it's always goodness :-)

Welcome to the party, Nicola Ken !

:-)

MHO: It all depends on what a Source is.

1 - If a source is a plug to a URI-based source handler, it should have children.

?? Have you seen children access methods on java.net.URL ??

Good point. Actually, it sorta closes the discussion for me :-)

2  - If it's a plug to a resource, it should not.

What is a "resource" ?

stuff, bytes, bits, whatever ;-)

Usually a source is (2), but since we bind the Source to a URI, (1) makes more sense. BTW, if (2) is true, specific Sources should probably not be the place anyway where to traverse a URI space, or else we are in case (1).

You lost me ;-)

Yeah :-)

Let me try to explain it, it could be fun trying to understand how my fried brain comes up with these sentences:

Usually a source is [intended as something that gives me a resource, that is a data entity], but since we bind the Source to a URI, [that is we get Sources from URIs], [making it hierarchically navigable as a URI space] makes more sense. BTW, if [being simply a handle to a resource] is true, specific [implelentations of] Sources should probably not be the place anyway where to traverse a URI space, or else we are in [the] case [where those Sources are resolvable with URIs, so they should have those methods].

If you still don't get it (yes, you should laugh at the complexity of the above) don't worry, *I'm* the mad one ;-)

Also, a source should IMNSHO do stream2xml conversion. It should pipe directly XML *only* if the source is itself already in xml form, like for example a precompiled SAX stream or a direct plugged in SAX stream (for example in the future bean env).

This makes the whole system more flexible, because we can easily change Generators to make the stream2xml conversion phase pluggale. If we make sources do all the conversion, we are back to Generators, and I don't see the real benfit other than syntatic sugar...

Even Carsten "source-master" got lost here ;-)))

hope my reply helps...

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
            - verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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