On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> public interface FileCollection {
> public (String or File?)[] getFiles();
> }
maybe even Resource[]? That would capture ZipFileSet in a clean way
as well.
> I think it is sufficient to require the type selector's use to
> restric
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > I'm -0 then. --DD
> >
> > Now what are you? :)
>
> I'm a pain, as usual ;-) It all sounds good Matt.
>
> You know as well as I do that -0 just means I'm
> not fond of the concept, but that y
--- "Alexey N. Solofnenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I think it should return a List of file descriptors:
>
> interface FileDescriptor {
> InputStream open();
> String getName();
> }
Since it is a FileCollection we are talking about, it
probably makes sense that it should return
> From: Alexey N. Solofnenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I think it should return a List of file descriptors:
>
> interface FileDescriptor {
> InputStream open();
> String getName();
> }
>
> In that case it will also support file lists, files from a zip, or
> , and it will be pos
I think it should return a List of file descriptors:
interface FileDescriptor {
InputStream open();
String getName();
}
In that case it will also support file lists, files from a zip, or
, and it will be possible to put a mapper inside a fileset.
- Alexey.
Matt Benson wrote:
Okay, the
> From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I'm -0 then. --DD
>
> Now what are you? :)
I'm a pain, as usual ;-) It all sounds good Matt.
You know as well as I do that -0 just means I'm
not fond of the concept, but that you could go
ahead with it. I avoid -1s because I'm mostly
talking her
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > --- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Then we could add another implementation of
> FileCollection that's
>
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Then we could add another implementation of FileCollection that's
> >> much like FileSet but doesn't require a basedir.
> >
> > The
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Then we could add another implementation of FileCollection that's
>> much like FileSet but doesn't require a basedir.
>
> Then wouldn't it still be easiest to extend AFS and move the
> "d
--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Dominique Devienne
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Peter. I don't like this.
>
> Me too.
>
> > Just create such a new type, like ,
>
> "just" 8-)
>
> My idea I never found time to follow through is a
> FileColl
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Peter. I don't like this.
Me too.
> Just create such a new type, like ,
"just" 8-)
My idea I never found time to follow through is a FileCollection
interface implemented by AbstractFileSet and FileList - and then
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[SNIP]
> I'm all for a true File Set datatype with no
> basedir,
> but not for retrofitting FileSet into this concept.
>
> Just create such a new type, like , which
> accepts nested filesets if you want, and adapt tasks
> can that conceptually deal
> From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that a fileset has a directory base is I
> > think its basic design.
>
> I like mappers, don't get me wrong, but I have the
> general feeling that different tasks may not always
> use them the
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that this is more fundamental that modifing
> a number
> of tasks.
>
> The fact that a fileset has a directory base is I
> think its basic design.
>
> It is used *a lot* for mappers, in-fact without the
> base-dir
> for the filesets, most uses
I think that this is more fundamental that modifing a number
of tasks.
The fact that a fileset has a directory base is I think its basic design.
It is used *a lot* for mappers, in-fact without the base-dir
for the filesets, most uses of mappers by tasks make no sense.
Peter
Matt Benson wrote:
Time
I'm all for making File*Set* actually be capable of a true set of files
anywhere I choose. The basedir restriction is one of the single
biggest walls I hit and workaround. So, +1 from me.
Erik
On Mar 8, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
Time for controversy! There is an interesting
16 matches
Mail list logo
