Steve Cohen wrote:
I must say, though that the name of your function is as ugly a method name as
any I've ever seen.
I know it, i hate it too, but ...
For sure, i can drop the word FTP as it is redundant (counted to how
often the word FTP appears in the FQCN of the builder-class)
I dont like
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.
The name doesn't have to imply ownership, and I'm still not sure what the
problem would be even if a VFS user thought it did. If the user cares about
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
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
Steve Cohen wrote:
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.
---tail cuted---
Now i got you, and must admit you are right.
I thought the method name should
On Friday 17 September 2004 1:01 pm, Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
Hello,
I'm new to this list, but I've been a happy user of commons-vfs for several
months, now. It's saved me tons of work, but now I'm running up against
what I think are its limits. I'm looking for advice on how to get around a
Steve Cohen wrote:
Sorry, please disregard my earlier reply. I didn't read your original
carefully enough. Mario has provided one workaround. I would suggest that
VFS should be enhanced to take advantage of this little-known capability of
Commons-Net.
Done!
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:01:07 -0400, Michael D. Hirsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Does anyone have any suggestions for how to proceed? I'm not
opposed to changing the vfs or net code if you think the changes
would be accepted back into CVS.
If you have ideas on how the api could be cleaner,
On Friday 17 September 2004 02:30 pm, Mario Ivankovits wrote:
Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
Another option is to explicitly pass the FQCN for my new parser into
DefaultFTPFileEntryParserFactory, but there I'm stymied because, AFAICT,
there is no way to pass the FQCN through the vfs layer to the net
