[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation

From: Nic Ferrier
Subject: Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:41:02 -0000

> It looks like activation will require some major plumbing.   At one point,
> number of support classes were sucked up and incorporated directly into
> javax.activation files making the files much more difficult to read and
> maintain.  What were the issues/requirements that precipitated this

Sorry, what support classes?

If you're referring to the parsing stuff that was me. You abstraction didn't
actually bring anything and was broken. I fixed it by putting an FSM
directly into the classes. Personally, I don't think it makes the classes
more difficult to read.

> If no one objects, I would like to redesign these files and incorporate
> object design back into them.

I object. There's nothing wrong with the way they are, they work now.

Before you do this I would like you to think about the following:

What is the rationale for changing them?

Why does adding abstraction benefit the implementation?

What is the direct benefit?

How long will it take?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]