[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation

From: David Brownell
Subject: Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 20:16:03 -0800

Isn't the point that the "activation" code should be used directly
to process mailcaps?  As a rule, one doesn't want javax.* code
to depend on any other package that's not called out by the API
specs (e.g. java.* is OK, neither sun.* nor gnu.* would be).

- Dave

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Selkirk" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation

> On December 3, 2001 04:41 am, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> > 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.
> That is exactly my point.  There is an FSM directly in the class.  That is a 
> logical pattern that can easily be pulled out, especially due to it's size 
> (sure it's not large, but it is significant).  The benefit of OOP is that 
> every component has it's logical piece that are used to build larger pieces.  
> I'm a huge believer of small and simple encapsulations.  And also, by pulling 
> it out into a separate class, other projects could reuse it for processing 
> mailcap's.
> I am working on finishing JAF and there is still pieces missing in the 
> functionality which I'm addressing.  I was just checking if there was any 
> major reasons for the FSM being in there.
> Andrew...
> _______________________________________________
> Classpathx-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

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