--- Martijn Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Benson schreef: > > >Another thought about the factory--it should cache > an > >instance of each FileUtils type to minimize object > >creation. We can either just have it be known that > >FileUtilsAdapter impls should be stateless or have > a > >StatelessFileUtilsAdapter interface--if > implemented, > >cache, else don't. > > > >thoughts? > > > >-Matt > > > Well I am certainly in favour of keeping FileUtils > stateless, by the
My point was only that we can't really enforce that FileUtilsAdapter (or whatever) impls are stateless. If we are making this factory-based we could allow users to (theoretically) provide their own implementation. If such an impl was stateful/non-threadsafe, singletons would misbehave. That's where my idea of a subinterface was coming from. Anyway... > way, didn't you move copying of files to > ResourceUtils some time ago? > viewcvs(svn) shows I did it 6.5 months ago... apparently so. Speaking of which, Kev (I think) mentioned these are static in ResourceUtils, but as they are unreleased we could change them to instance methods. The behavior there is fairly straightforward, though, so I'm not sure if anything would be gained by this... -Matt > Martijn > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
