On Mon, 23 May 2005, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My proposal regarding copy is that any FileResource with a base
> directory is processed according to BC,
+1
> but any other Resource is copied with implicit flattening (and an
> appropriate warning message) unless a nested mapper ele
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So by that token, you would similarly add a Deletable
> (?) interface for FileResource to implement. So then
> move could fail when encountering a Resource that does
> not implement Deletable...
Let's turn this around. Do we really w
--- Alexey Solofnenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds great. Do you have also "Movable" interface?
Not yet. Let's see if anyone else has anything to say
about these concepts too.
-Matt
>
> - Alexey.
>
> On 5/23/05, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- "Alexey N. Solofnenk
Sounds great. Do you have also "Movable" interface?
- Alexey.
On 5/23/05, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- "Alexey N. Solofnenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Can it be - copy+delete in that case?
>
> Okay... here's what I did for preserving timestamps in
> FileUtils copy meth
--- "Alexey N. Solofnenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Can it be - copy+delete in that case?
Okay... here's what I did for preserving timestamps in
FileUtils copy methods. I added a Touchable interface
to the resources package. FileResource is (so far)
the only Resource that uses it, but I was
Can it be - copy+delete in that case?
- Alexey.
Matt Benson wrote:
... Regarding the Move task, I don't see that we could
move non-file resources in a predictable way so I
would recommend failing on ResourceCollections that do
not return true from isFilesystemOnly().
Thoughts?
-Matt
--
