On 10/6/08, Andy Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my opinion, I would leave the FileObject as-is, if it's really causing > issues, make changes in a local copy. I suspect though, that as the world > moves to more object-based storage, the local changes will be a major > problem. It's not just a simple name change, it's what it represents :-).
I guess I might not be as forward thinking :-) I've changed the name from FileObject to FtpFile. The reason being that I've always found "FileObject" being such a wierd name (what is not an object in a Java API?). I'll be happy to change the name again if someone has a good idea for what it should be called. I'm not happy with FileObject, but as always I could be persuaded. /niklas
