At 01:55 PM 12/10/2004, you wrote:
Hi,
> As Curt's remarks demonstrate, InputStream is not a common > *denominator* for files, URLs.
Hmm, you would think that given a File and given a URL, File.toURL().openStream() and URL.openStream() would be a nice commons denominator. It's a pattern I've used in the past with good success.
Hmm, you are right. I take my comment back.
What I mean is that if something is expected to work with a URL you cannot assume that it will also work perfectly with an InputStream. A URL is a handle to a protocol whereas an InputStream is a sequence of bytes.
However, I never had to deal with the case Curt brought up, of an XML file providing relative URLs. What's the use case here? Can't whoever would call configure(inputStream, baseUri) simply call configure(inputStream) having resolved the relative URI and opened a stream to the absolute one themselves? Do we have to bend over for this?
It's the problem of compatibility with old config files in XML which had a DTD. It's an important issue because if we get it wrong, it will affect all existing config files (making them incompatible with 1.3).
I also don't think it's a big deal to have a stateful Configurator. Despite being only 1.2->1.3 in numbering, this is a big new release, and if there's significant benefit in changing Configurators to stateful, and if we document the new stuff well, I see no problem with it. But that's just me ;)
I am still digesting Curts recent changes. Comparatively, the statefulness issue seems so secondary that I decided to ignore it temporarily.
Yoav Shapira
-- Ceki G�lc�
The complete log4j manual: http://qos.ch/log4j/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
