Re: FileDescriptor proposal

[Brian Jones]

Anthony Green <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 01:04, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
> > Have you looked at the most recent GNU Classpath FileDescriptor?
> 
> Only just now.  I was looking at the last release (0.05). 
> 
> > It
> > fully encapsulates the file descriptor (apart from getNativeFd used by
> > java.nio.*, but I'm ignoring that at the moment).
> 
> Yes, it's a big improvement.  Do you know what the plan is for
> java.nio?  
> 
> > Agreed, but I'm pretty sure that the current model only requires you to
> > replace FileDescriptor.
> 
> Yes - that's what it looks like.  I suppose that if my proposal is not
> accepted then I will just have to add a layer in my private
> FileDescriptor to forward calls to stream specific handlers.

I don't think I have an opinion here.  Your approach is additive... by
which I mean to support a new non-posixy platform you create your own
Factory and Descriptor class which could probably co-exist with the
POSIX flavored versions at the same time... but would it ever need to?
The current approach would seem to limit an installation to one or the
other.

Would it even make sense for a system to use different descriptors for
different protocols, thinking URL types here?  I don't think the rest
of the library supports such a notion so anyway...

So the benefit is to not have to put your FileDescriptor version first
in the CLASSPATH and instead use a switch like
-Dfiledescriptor.factory.class=org.foo.blah?

Brian
-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>