Hi!
Probably I find some time during the next weekend to fix a long standig
bug in VFS regarding dealing with hidden or special files.
The main problem I see is that VFS tries to act more like a real
filesystem than a simple wrapper.
VFS tries to determine the filetype (FILE, DIR, VIRTUAL) and
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mittwoch, 21. Mai 2008 14:45
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: [vfs] vfs2 or plain wrapper mode
Hi!
Probably I find some time during the next weekend to fix a
long standig
bug in VFS regarding dealing with hidden or special files.
The main
Hi Mario,
On 5/21/08, Mario Ivankovits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, my questions are:
* [ ] Do you agree that such an evolution might make sense
* and if so, should I
** [ ] add a VFS-global (static) flag to enable this wrapper-like-mode or
** [ ] can I fork VFS to put the current head into
Hi Martin!
Just wondering, how would a client of VFS enumerate
Just the folders in a directory e.g. in order to
Render a tree of files?
As today. Disabling the file-type determination should be optional only
and isn't something I'd change during the first development iteration.
The
We also have the situation where the directories are also hidden. So we
need to be able to traverse hidden directories as well. Sounds like your
solution would work for directories as well, if VFS didn't attempt to
enumerate all the files in all the directories along the path?
On Wed, May 21,
Hi!
Sounds like your
solution would work for directories as well, if VFS didn't attempt to
enumerate all the files in all the directories along the path?
Yes, that is the plan :-)
What I wrote about files count for directories too, for me this
attribute is just a different value ;-)
Ciao,
Mario Ivankovits wrote:
[snip]
So, my questions are:
* [X] Do you agree that such an evolution might make sense
* and if so, should I
** [ ] add a VFS-global (static) flag to enable this
wrapper-like-mode or
** [X] can I fork VFS to put the current head into
maintainance (or more
correct
* [X ] Do you agree that such an evolution might make sense
* and if so, should I
** [ ] add a VFS-global (static) flag to enable this wrapper-like-mode or
** [X ] can I fork VFS to put the current head into maintainance (or more
correct dormant) mode and start with e.g. VFS 2.0?
--
