In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mario Ivankovits writes:
>Sure, I can do this, but shouldnt [net] try to be RFC compliant?
>Leaving it to the user to be compliant is odd, isnt it?
The original intent of commons-net was to provide low-level access to
IETF protocols. That meant providing primitive operations only, although
some high level functionality made it's way in out of necessity. I'm not
going to stand in the way of changing listFiles (although I guess it would
now be initiateListParsing) to switch modes as necessary, but the original
intent was for higher level tools like VFS to use the low level primitives
to provide higher level functions (like recursive retrieves and such). At
any rate, I don't have a strong opinion and if most folks think it makes
more sense for FTPClient to take care of the detail, then let's do that.
What do others think? The trend seems to have been to want commons-net
(at least the ftp package) to handle more stuff automatically and hide
the details.
daniel
-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-| Sleep and The Traveller |-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-
s a v a r e s e # In distant lands, I hear the call of my home.
software research # Yet my work is not done. My journey's just begun.
http://www.savarese.com/ # -- http://www.sleepandthetraveller.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
