On Monday 20 September 2004 6:30 am, Mario Ivankovits wrote: > Steve Cohen wrote: > >Well, I don't really agree with you about your reasons not to like > >setParserKey(). It's a key that ultimately gets translated into a parser. > > Thats right as long as the user uses the default factory implementation > else it is the key which is passed to the factory - whatever it does > with this data. > > >Still, I'm all for "shorter is better" and therefore I am in favor of the > > two renamings you propose as improvements over the current names. > > Well then, lets do it. >
That's good. Thinking over our small disagreement, it occurs to me that's what's behind it is my feeling that a need has not been shown thus far for parser factories other than the default. Everything we've thus far been asked to do was doable using just the default parser factory. Thus far, the DefaultFTPFileEntryParserFactory has proven itself sufficiently flexible to do the job. I understand that ultimately such a need may arise, but until it does, my preference would be to avoid unnecessary complexity and not feature the factory concept so prominently; rather we could remain secure in the knowledge that it's there if we ever need it. Writing a new parser is beyond the scope of most developers. We can count on one hand the number that have been written and contributed. Still further beyond that scope is the writing of parser factories. That is where I was coming from. But as I said, I am okay with your changes. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
