I'm interested in this mainly as an academic exercise, because I see
using reflection as the only dynamic behaviour that Java offers and
it allows for some 'tricks' (for want of a better phrase) to write
less code. I'm also interested in the sort of reception that this
kind of code gets - most pe
I am not historically a champion of readability for
its own sake ;) , but in this case I am of the general
impression (without having thoroughly perused the
proposed change) that it should be possible to
eliminate the duplication without resorting to
reflection. To rephrase, if reflection were (i
> OK. Actually I had written the pieces of code which you are
> refactoring. :(
It's ok, I have the advantage of hindsight, coming into a stable
codebase is always easier than writing stuff from scratch - also I tend
to specialise in refactoring at work - I rarely sit down and write teh
origina
--- Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2006, at 7:26 AM, Kev Jackson wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to run this by people here to see what
> people think of
> > this. Basically DirectoryScanner has some
> duplicated code
> > [ accountForIncludedFile, accountForI
On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:13 AM, Kev Jackson wrote:
Antoine has mentioned that he would prefer not to use reflection
for the
simple reason that some tools cannot show the method graph - in this
particular case I can't see that being a problem as no methods are
called using reflection, I'm only us
> >
> > For additional testing I've created a directory/file structure like
> >
> > 1/
> >1 2/
> > 2 3/
> > 3 4/
>
> so much effort ...
>
nah, 5 lines of script - I wasn't going to do it manually :)
> I assume you tried some combinations of include/excludes. Dominique
> used to
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Kev Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Stefan, (and other interested devs)
>
> For additional testing I've created a directory/file structure like
>
> 1/
>1 2/
> 2 3/
> 3 4/
so much effort ...
> ie a single file under a directory, the tree is 1038+ layers
On Aug 23, 2006, at 7:26 AM, Kev Jackson wrote:
Hi,
I want to run this by people here to see what people think of
this. Basically DirectoryScanner has some duplicated code
[ accountForIncludedFile, accountForIncludedDir ], I think I have a
refactored processIncluded method that can repl
Hi Stefan, (and other interested devs)
For additional testing I've created a directory/file structure like
1/
1 2/
2 3/
3 4/
ie a single file under a directory, the tree is 1038+ layers deep and
there is no difference between the original time taken by the
DirectoryScanner code and
On 23 Aug 2006, at 11:38, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Kev Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I want to run this by people here to see what people think of this.
Basically DirectoryScanner has some duplicated code [
accountForIncludedFile, accountForIncludedDir ], I think I have
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Kev Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to run this by people here to see what people think of this.
> Basically DirectoryScanner has some duplicated code [
> accountForIncludedFile, accountForIncludedDir ], I think I have a
> refactored processIncluded method that can
11 matches
Mail list logo
