On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 08:59:47PM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 12:03:49PM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote: > > On Sunday 03 February 2002 23:19, you wrote: > <> > > > Yeah, I know. It's rather an unreasonable interface imho. I have never > > > needed to use either of those methods. Do you really need them? > > > > Yes. They are used by client code. You use Bucket.size() yourself in > > InternalClient. I don't think Bucket was ever intended to be used by core > > code (but I'm sure I will hear from Oskar if I am wrong ;-) ). > > I wrote the interface as an abstraction of File (specifically so I could > implement an encrypted temporary file). The methods simply match the > functions of File and FileOutputStream. It has no methods regarding the > allocated size because it predates all the DS complication by many > months. > > I suppose either the interface should be simplified, it should be forked > into two interfaces (Buffer?), or Tavin should fix his implementation > (counting bytes really isn't a big deal).
I'm arguing for the simplification of the interface. -tc P.S. counting bytes isn't a big deal but if it's unnecessary, why do it? and Buffer's already taken btw.. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
