On Nov 8, 2007 12:00 AM, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > Having said that - I still think this is a good fit for Commons IO and
> > still would like to add it (with the hope that future JCI versions
> > migrate to the IO impl). Anyone else got an opinion o
On Nov 7, 2007 5:53 PM, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 07.11.2007, at 04:54, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> > On Oct 21, 2007 7:12 AM, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> Maybe it would make more sense to do these changes in commons-
> jci-fam
>
Niall Pemberton wrote:
Having said that - I still think this is a good fit for Commons IO and
still would like to add it (with the hope that future JCI versions
migrate to the IO impl). Anyone else got an opinion on adding it to
IO?
I think that a file poller is a good addition to [io]. However
On 07.11.2007, at 04:54, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Oct 21, 2007 7:12 AM, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
Maybe it would make more sense to do these changes in commons-
jci-fam
first and then move that to a new commons-fam?
Sounds reasonable, although I still think IO is a
On Oct 21, 2007 7:12 AM, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >> Maybe it would make more sense to do these changes in commons-jci-fam
> >> first and then move that to a new commons-fam?
> >>
> >
> > Sounds reasonable, although I still think IO is a better home for fam
> > than a s
On Oct 21, 2007 1:15 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/20/07, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey Niall,
> >
> > Thanks for looking into that. But frankly speaking I am not a big fan
> > of that for a couple of reasons.
> >
> > That would make it the 3rd FAM implem
Hi!
Maybe it would make more sense to do these changes in commons-jci-fam
first and then move that to a new commons-fam?
Sounds reasonable, although I still think IO is a better home for fam
than a separate component.
In any case, it would be creat if the code is built in a way that makes
On 10/20/07, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Niall,
>
> Thanks for looking into that. But frankly speaking I am not a big fan
> of that for a couple of reasons.
>
> That would make it the 3rd FAM implementation in the commons
> codebase. There already is commons-jci-fam, the commons-
Hey Niall,
Thanks for looking into that. But frankly speaking I am not a big fan
of that for a couple of reasons.
That would make it the 3rd FAM implementation in the commons
codebase. There already is commons-jci-fam, the commons-vfs fam and
then we would also have the commons-io fam.
I have created an issue ticket to add the functionality (with some
refactoring) provided by the fam module in JCI to Commons IO:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-132
If its accepted by Commons IO I hope it can be used by JCI as well -
rather than duplicating.
Comment welcome
Niall
10 matches
Mail list logo