Hey Felix,
FYI: I am at ApacheCon right now and will take a look at this next week
after I return...just didn't want you to think that I was ignoring it.
-> richard
Felix Meschberger wrote:
HI again,
Based upon your recommendations, I tried to implement the abstract
BundleCache and BundleArchive strategy as a prototype.
I have not cleaned it up properly and there is in fact one problem
with it: The BundleArchive constructors initiliaze the instances. When
extending the BundleArchive for storage dependent implementations, the
constructors of the base class do not yet know anything about the
storage, but initialization depends on the storage. My solution is to
introduce an init() method, which initializes and ist called by the
BundleCache.
I do not like this implementation very much as it kind of transfers
responsibility for additional intialization to the caller. But in the
short time, I did not come up with a better solution.
I attach the patch for this prototype along with the File based
implementation.
What do you think: Could this be a way to go ? Should I post a Jira
issue ?
Regards and Thanks
Felix, the person :-)
On 6/20/06, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Felix Meschberger wrote:
> On 6/20/06, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In general, any solution for doing stuff like you have suggested, I
>> would hope, should concentrate on using/improving these existing
>> mechanisms rather than creating new ones.
>
> I definitely agree. Yet not being able to ammend BundleCache and
> BundleArchive, I am still required to have file system space - this
> sort of worries me.
This is the sort of stuff that we can improve upon then. I am not
against making it once again possible to be able configure which
implementation of BundleCache to use. It was just removed because I had
no valid use case. We just need to discuss what is needed and how to
do it.
-> richard
