Re: copy + ResourceCollections

[Stefan Bodewig]

On Mon, 23 May 2005, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> My proposal regarding copy is that any FileResource with a base
> directory is processed according to BC,

+1

> but any other Resource is copied with implicit flattening (and an
> appropriate warning message) unless a nested mapper element says
> otherwise.

Sounds reasonable and easy to explain.

Stefan

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: copy + ResourceCollections

[Stefan Bodewig]

On Mon, 23 May 2005, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So by that token, you would similarly add a Deletable
> (?) interface for FileResource to implement.  So then
> move could fail when encountering a Resource that does
> not implement Deletable...

Let's turn this around.  Do we really want to support deleting of
files on a remote FTP server using  or ?  Or would we
want users to stick to  fro this?

Stefan

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: copy + ResourceCollections

[Matt Benson]

--- Alexey Solofnenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds great. Do you have also "Movable" interface?

Not yet.  Let's see if anyone else has anything to say
about these concepts too.

-Matt
> 
> - Alexey.
> 
> On 5/23/05, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > 
> > --- "Alexey N. Solofnenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Can it be - copy+delete in that case?
> > 
> > Okay... here's what I did for preserving
> timestamps in
> > FileUtils copy methods. I added a Touchable
> interface
> > to the resources package. FileResource is (so far)
> > the only Resource that uses it, but I was thinking
> > along the lines of FTP/SCP Resources when I added
> it.
> > So by that token, you would similarly add a
> Deletable
> > (?) interface for FileResource to implement. So
> then
> > move could fail when encountering a Resource that
> does
> > not implement Deletable... that is the only
> sensible
> > way that occurs to me to support Resource
> deletion.
> > 
> > -Matt
> > 
> > >
> > > - Alexey.
> > >
> > > Matt Benson wrote:
> > >
> > > >... Regarding the Move task, I don't see that
> we
> > > could
> > > >move non-file resources in a predictable way so
> I
> > > >would recommend failing on ResourceCollections
> that
> > > do
> > > >not return true from isFilesystemOnly().
> > > >
> > > >Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >-Matt
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alexey N. Solofnenko trelony at gmail.com
> 
> home: http://trelony.cjb.net/
> Pleasant Hill, CA (GMT-8 hours usually)
> 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: copy + ResourceCollections

[Alexey Solofnenko]

Sounds great. Do you have also "Movable" interface?

- Alexey.

On 5/23/05, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> --- "Alexey N. Solofnenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Can it be - copy+delete in that case?
> 
> Okay... here's what I did for preserving timestamps in
> FileUtils copy methods. I added a Touchable interface
> to the resources package. FileResource is (so far)
> the only Resource that uses it, but I was thinking
> along the lines of FTP/SCP Resources when I added it.
> So by that token, you would similarly add a Deletable
> (?) interface for FileResource to implement. So then
> move could fail when encountering a Resource that does
> not implement Deletable... that is the only sensible
> way that occurs to me to support Resource deletion.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> >
> > - Alexey.
> >
> > Matt Benson wrote:
> >
> > >... Regarding the Move task, I don't see that we
> > could
> > >move non-file resources in a predictable way so I
> > >would recommend failing on ResourceCollections that
> > do
> > >not return true from isFilesystemOnly().
> > >
> > >Thoughts?
> > >
> > >-Matt
> 


-- 
Alexey N. Solofnenko trelony at gmail.com 
home: http://trelony.cjb.net/
Pleasant Hill, CA (GMT-8 hours usually)

Re: copy + ResourceCollections

[Matt Benson]

--- "Alexey N. Solofnenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Can it be - copy+delete in that case?

Okay... here's what I did for preserving timestamps in
FileUtils copy methods.  I added a Touchable interface
to the resources package.  FileResource is (so far)
the only Resource that uses it, but I was thinking
along the lines of FTP/SCP Resources when I added it. 
So by that token, you would similarly add a Deletable
(?) interface for FileResource to implement.  So then
move could fail when encountering a Resource that does
not implement Deletable... that is the only sensible
way that occurs to me to support Resource deletion.

-Matt

> 
> - Alexey.
> 
> Matt Benson wrote:
> 
> >...  Regarding the Move task, I don't see that we
> could
> >move non-file resources in a predictable way so I
> >would recommend failing on ResourceCollections that
> do
> >not return true from isFilesystemOnly().
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >-Matt




__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: copy + ResourceCollections

[Alexey N. Solofnenko]

Can it be - copy+delete in that case?

- Alexey.

Matt Benson wrote:


...  Regarding the Move task, I don't see that we could
move non-file resources in a predictable way so I
would recommend failing on ResourceCollections that do
not return true from isFilesystemOnly().

Thoughts?

-Matt
 


--

/ Alexey N. Solofnenko
MDL Information Systems, Inc.
work: 510-357-x1726
home: http://trelony.cjb.net/
/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]