Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
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.
The FileObject name will clash with the
org.apache.commons.vfs.FileObject in the case a Developer using Ftplet
decide to use the common-vfs to implements its FileSystemView.
FtpFile is not so good but IMHO is better than FileObject. I don't known
a better name.
--
Andrea Francia
http://andreafrancia.blogspot.com/2008/07/colinux-linux-dentro-windows.html
