Re: [DISC] Datatypes

[David Rees <d....@usa.net>]

On 28 Mar 2001 10:11:57 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

>David Rees <d....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Actually, mappers should be used for path modification.  I make the
>> distinction because they should be applicable to a variety of
>> sources (file system, ftp, http, zip, etc.).
>
>Well, they already do - the map from String to String[].
>
>> On 27 Mar 2001 10:42:06 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>>>> * Make all datatypes interfaces to allow them to be customized in
>>>> * many ways.
>>>
>>>Where appropriate, but not all of them.
>> 
>> Which ones do you not like?
>
>The wrong question IMHO. Which datatypes would benefit from being
>interfaces? I see no real reason in the case of <path> for example,
>while I might see it in the <fileset> case.
>

I guess this a problem I have with Java in general. It makes using
interfaces more work. In reality there is a "interface" we are using
for <path>. IMO, if someone wants to substitute their own class that
supports this API they should be able to without having to change
<path> or its callers.

>>>> * Homogenize notion of PATHs and filesets.
>>>
>>>Doesn't always make sense, we need the specific use cases where
>>>paths and filesets are interchangeable.
>>>
>> When are they not?
>
>When order is important - like Conor and Glenn have already said. A
>path is ordered, a fileset is not.
>

Still, why should that effect the public API?

dave