> [ ] Use URI style > [X] Keep current behaviour > [X] Minimum jdk 1.4 > [ ] Minimum jdk 1.3
I think that for a new release, you must provide backwards compatible behavior unless you are fixing an obvious bug. This does not sound like a bug. If it were up to me, I would release your next version ASAP and then tackle how to provide both behaviors in the best way for a subsequent release. I like the XP mantra: "Release early, release often". My 2c, Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 11:05 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Users List > Subject: [POLL][VFS] how to resolve relative filenames > > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
