Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > > Following Stephen's example, I grep'ed instanceof on the whole 2.1 > source base and found... 388 of them ! > And how many of them are *not* because of Avalon?
> >Anyway, I think your arguments are better than mine (sniff). > > > >So, we have a TraversableSource or HierarchicalSource or ...? > > > > > > I'm not a native speaker, but the definition of traversable given by > dictionary.com makes me prefer hierarchical... > Yupp. > Ah, and what about adding an "exists()" method on Source (it's currently > on WriteableSource) ? That one makes sense and is really useful, as the > current way to know if an URI exists is to try to getInputStream(), > which can be heavy. +1 > > >What do you think about the ModifiableSource in Excalibur? (That > should be > >the replacement for WriteableSource - please let *me* win this time ;) ) > > > > > > Hey, you won on the SourceFactory.release() ! Ah, yes - I forgot that. :) > > But I don't want to count points or judge anyone/anything. I just want > things to be nice, and, well, we sometimes have different feelings about > what is nice ;-) Absolutely, and (you know me) I only meant this as a joke. It's not important who is right, but it's important that we come to the "right" solution. > > I'm not sure about the "Modifiable" name. Maybe I'm biased because it > was formerly (in 2.0) used to name something else ? Don't you like > "WriteableSource", or "OutputSource" ? Don't know... Ok, you're right with Modifiable and actually I didn't like WriteableSource because you don't write directly to the source but to the OutputStream provided by the Source. > > Whatever its name, it would be good for this interface to have the > canCancel() and cancel() that are on WriteableSource. These allow data > that has been written to a source to be discarded if something goes > wrong. This is especially usefull in pipelines using the SWT for example. Ah yes, these were the methods I wanted to ask about - ok, if they are important we can add them. > > About the move() and copy() methods, I don't know if they should be kept > in the new incarnation of this interface. > I don't think that they are important. A copy is a read/write action and a move a read/write/delete action. We could make an utility class providing support for it (and this would allow an inter source moving. wow!). Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
