You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@commons.apache.org by Stevo Slavić <ss...@gmail.com> on 2012/07/22 15:08:58 UTC
[io] Make FileSystemUtils constructor private and refactor OS stuff
from FileSystemUtils into OperatingSystemUtils
Hello Apache Commons community,
Is there any special reason for FileSystemUtils constructor to be public?
Shouldn't it be private instead?
What do you think about refactoring FileSystemUtils, to move OS stuff into
separate OperatingSystemUtils class exposing isWindows, isUnix,
isPosixUnix, isSolaris, isMac, getOs API?
Here's the link to current FileSystemUtils revision:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/io/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/io/FileSystemUtils.java?revision=1304052&view=markup
Kind regards,
Stevo Slavić.
Re: [io] Make FileSystemUtils constructor private and refactor OS
stuff from FileSystemUtils into OperatingSystemUtils
Posted by Stevo Slavić <ss...@gmail.com>.
Changing access modifier, yes it will. I guess, even if someone was using
constructor for this utility static methods class, that can mitigated by
scheduling the change for next major release. I'm more interested if there
is any special reason behind decision to make the constructor public in the
first place.
Similarly, I'm interested on any thoughts about refactoring out
OperatingSystemUtils, anyone have anything against that, maybe against it
being part of commons-io. One use case where I'd use it is in a JUnit test
which uses JUnit Assumes API and has OS specific test cases.
Kind regards,
Stevo Slavić.
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 July 2012 14:08, Stevo Slavić <ss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Apache Commons community,
> >
> > Is there any special reason for FileSystemUtils constructor to be public?
> > Shouldn't it be private instead?
> >
> > What do you think about refactoring FileSystemUtils, to move OS stuff
> into
> > separate OperatingSystemUtils class exposing isWindows, isUnix,
> > isPosixUnix, isSolaris, isMac, getOs API?
> >
> > Here's the link to current FileSystemUtils revision:
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/io/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/io/FileSystemUtils.java?revision=1304052&view=markup
>
> Sounds like this will break binary and/or source compatibiliy.
>
> > Kind regards,
> > Stevo Slavić.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [io] Make FileSystemUtils constructor private and refactor OS
stuff from FileSystemUtils into OperatingSystemUtils
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 22 July 2012 14:08, Stevo Slavić <ss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Apache Commons community,
>
> Is there any special reason for FileSystemUtils constructor to be public?
> Shouldn't it be private instead?
>
> What do you think about refactoring FileSystemUtils, to move OS stuff into
> separate OperatingSystemUtils class exposing isWindows, isUnix,
> isPosixUnix, isSolaris, isMac, getOs API?
>
> Here's the link to current FileSystemUtils revision:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/io/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/io/FileSystemUtils.java?revision=1304052&view=markup
Sounds like this will break binary and/or source compatibiliy.
> Kind regards,
> Stevo Slavić.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org