> Don't you expect some common code to exist in each handler?
Since we don't have this code in the CVS, all I'm doing is kibbitzing with
you and Peter on each of your private builds, and testing.
I did, however, raise this issue with Peter. What Peter has said is that he
doesn't see a need for it in the current code, and is perfectly willing to
add it when it becomes useful.
He points out that even the hello name is different with Remote Manager. I
thought, as you did, that there must be something in common but looking over
the code, there is very little. A few instance variables, maybe a couple of
convenience methods. In the latter case, Peter has a comment that they are
private final to encourage the compiler to inline them, since they are
purely syntactic sugar and he didn't want a performance hit.
If/when there really is a reason, it can be reintroduced without changing
anything outside of the handler. For example, if James v3 handlers use a
real command map, we could have a common handleConnection() method with an
abstract getCommands() method. That could be one justification for a
BaseConnectionHandler.
I don't think that this particular issue is a reason to hold up code
release, do you? Are you saying that the difference between a -1 and a +1
is whether or not (shorthand):
BCH { socket; watchdog; setWatchdog; }
is in the build?
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
