DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG� RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34362>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND� INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34362 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-13 19:39 ------- Hey, thanks for your work! Here are some of my thoughts: WRT load() methods: I may be wrong, but I thought that the load() methods were already implemented in a way that they call each other and that most part of the logic was placed in one of them. If your load(URL) method does the job, how do you handle readers and streams then? WRT save(): The save as semantic is okay with me, I think this is compatible with the actual implementation, isn't it? WRT setting the file name stuff: I am -1 that these methods should throw exceptions. Wouldn't it be possible to evaluate the values lazy, i.e. when the load() method is called? As I already pointed out, for me there is no need that all of the getters and setters are always in sync. If the URL that is used by the load() method is stored and used again by save(), this is fine. >From your description I get the impression that the whole process is quite delicate, and I bet there will be a bunch of other opinions about how ambiguities (e.g. with the base path) should be resolved. So I would recommend to provide only simple getters and setters and in addition allow to retrieve the resolved URL used by load(). I see this fix as a temporary solution only. For the long run I am for the locators. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
