On Oct 21, 2007 1:15 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/20/07, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Niall, > > > > Thanks for looking into that. But frankly speaking I am not a big fan > > of that for a couple of reasons. > > > > That would make it the 3rd FAM implementation in the commons > > codebase. There already is commons-jci-fam, the commons-vfs fam and > > then we would also have the commons-io fam. > > VFS could replace IO completely but the power of VFS comes at the cost > of a further layer of abstraction and theres still value in having a > simpler, "closer to the metal" Commons IO when all thats required is > local file system functionality. I think thats both true for VFS and > IO as a whole and for fam in particular. So two implementations is no > bad thing IMO - but I agree that three implementations isn't desirable > and my hope is/was that if what I proposed was accepted that JCI would > migrate to the IO impl. > > > With commons-jci-fam we already have a well tested and released > > version as own artifact. So I am not really seeing the need for > > making the general commons-io bigger while this is a more specific > > need that IMO maybe justifies it's own artifact. I would be more than > > happy to accept patches and improvements within the JCI codebase - > > that's for sure! > > I also don't think that its big enough for its own component - the > core of it is only 2 interfaces and 4 classes - that doesn't seem too > big for IO to me and I think its currently "hidden" in JCI where > people wouldn't expect to go looking for something like this - whereas > I think they would in IO. > > Your point about patches/improvements for jci-fam is well taken though > :) The only problem I see is the scope for breaking/changing the > already released API (it was far easier not having to worry about the > existing code/API by putting forward something new to IO). > > > Mario and I talked about merging the FAM implementations (although I > > fear that's not easy). We even considered a commons-fam > > project ...it's just that the codebase is a little small on its own. > > > > Maybe it would make more sense to do these changes in commons-jci-fam > > first and then move that to a new commons-fam? > > Sounds reasonable, although I still think IO is a better home for fam > than a separate component. I'll try and find some cycles for this, but > not sure when. The main difference is in the FileObserverImpl so if > you have the time/inclination then feedback on whether you think it > has merit and worth factoring back into > FilesystemAlterationObserverImpl would be appreciated. If not, no > worries and I'll work up a patch at some point.
OK I submitted an initial patch for JCI: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCI-55 Having said that - I still think this is a good fit for Commons IO and still would like to add it (with the hope that future JCI versions migrate to the IO impl). Anyone else got an opinion on adding it to IO? The Jira ticket is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-132 Niall > Niall > > > > WDYT? Niall? Mario? > > > > cheers > > -- > > Torsten > > > > > > On 20.10.2007, at 08:50, Niall Pemberton wrote: > > > > > I have created an issue ticket to add the functionality (with some > > > refactoring) provided by the fam module in JCI to Commons IO: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-132 > > > > > > If its accepted by Commons IO I hope it can be used by JCI as well - > > > rather than duplicating. > > > > > > Comment welcome > > > > > > Niall > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
