Hi!
I would like to know how you think VFS should resolve filenames relative
to another filename.
There is a request to change VFS's current behaviour.
Consider the following root: "file:///my/root/file" and this relative
filename "any/child/file"
currently VFS resolve it to "file:///my/root/file/any/child/file"
Compared to java.net.URI this is "wrong".
The URI class resolves to "file:///my/root/any/child/file" (notice the
missing "file" part) as long as the root filename will not end with an "/"
e.g the example above with root "file:///my/root/file/" will resolve to
"file:///my/root/file/any/child/file"
The URI class distinguishes between directory/file for the last filename
part - no matter if it is really a directory, this will only be detected
by checking the last "/".
VFS works more like java.io.File where a child is a child no matter what
type the root-name is.
If we go the URI way any new VFS release will be paused for some weeks
AND it breaks your application if you use the a relative filename stuff
without a trailing "/" for the rootname.
Maybe some other disadvantages follow as I cant fully analyze all
changes needed.
Also please state your minimum jdk requirements. If we go the URI way I
would like to know if we could swap to java's URI at all (if possible
... needs some deeper anlayze too)
[ ] Use URI style
[ ] Keep current behaviour
[ ] Minimum jdk 1.4
[ ] Minimum jdk 1.3
I have to admit I would stick on the current behaviour as it is less
work ;-), but I really would like to hear (read) what you think.
Thanks!
---
Mario
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
