> -----Original Message----- > From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: lundi 17 juillet 2006 13:25 > To: 'Jakarta Commons Users List' > Subject: RE: [VFS] Why resolveFile API doesn't accepting URI ? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Philippe Poulard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: lundi 17 juillet 2006 13:12 > > To: Jakarta Commons Users List > > Subject: Re: [VFS] Why resolveFile API doesn't accepting URI ? > > [snip] > > > URIs are classified in opaque URIs and hierarchical URIs ; the uri1 in > > your example is hierarchical, the uri2 is opaque, but it looks like a > > hierarchical URI ; what we can't do with opaque URIs ? well... resolving > > a relative URI regarding it > > Ok, that's a good point. I believe it would still be possible for VFS to > transform an opaque URI object into an internal hierarchical layered URI, > but fine I now understand the point. > > As I mentioned in my first mail, the reason I'm asking all these questions > is because I need to take the decision as to whether to use the URI class > in Cargo or a String object. From what you say I think a URI would still > work and I would call resolveFile() passing it myURI.toString().
FWIW, I now think we should use Strings and not URIs... :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/f6uu4 for the reasons). The main reason is that I'd like Cargo end users to use the "c:/tmp" syntax to represent a file and new File(new URI("c:/tmp")) doesn't work as the scheme is "c" and not "file". Using "file://c:/tmp" Thanks -Vincent --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
