Hi, I don't know if it makes sense at this time. But if File and Path had both implemented CharSequence. We could just accept a CharSequence for every method that needs a path/file. Allowing to parse along either a File, Path or String.
I've have done myself in some APIs that uses tree-based structures. Where I had a generic TreePath interface extending CharSequence. And then every method operating on a path would just receive a CharSequence path. Accepting both Strings and Treepaths. /Kasper On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 01:47, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com> wrote: > (looping in nio-dev) > > Hi Andrew, > > The NIO APIs (Java 1.4) were intended to supplement the pre-existing Java > I/O APIs and this effort was continued in the NIO.2 APIs (Java 7). The Path > interface is part of the latter. My impression is that the intent was more > to supersede the older APIs than to enhance them to coexist better with the > new ones. The addition for example of the constructors you suggest > therefore would not be encouraged despite the convenience they might afford > in some situations. There are others on these mailing lists however who > know the historical context of this area better than I do and who I expect > will chime in with a better answer. > > Thanks, > > Brian > > > On Dec 17, 2018, at 4:12 PM, Andrew Luo < > andrewluotechnolog...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > > Many classes such as: > > > > > https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/io/RandomAccessFile.html > < > https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/io/RandomAccessFile.html > > > > > https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/util/zip/ZipFile.html > < > https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/util/zip/ZipFile.html > > > > > > have constructors that use the File API or String but no constructor > that takes Path. Is there any interest in adding these? The reason I ask > this is because we now encourage new code to use Path instead of File, so > having to do .toFile() in many places can seems unnecessary. Then again, > this is a minor annoyance, but I think it is a useful addition. What do > you guys think? > >
