Bug 273179 - Review the API for FileUtils DynamicPathComputer
Summary: Review the API for FileUtils DynamicPathComputer
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Equinox
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: p2 (show other bugs)
Version: 3.5   Edit
Hardware: PC Linux
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: P2 Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: api
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-04-22 00:19 EDT by Ian Bull CLA
Modified: 2020-02-20 04:37 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ian Bull CLA 2009-04-22 00:19:57 EDT
The dynamic path computer in FileUtils has caused a few bugs lately (bug 244813 and bug 272573).  I think some of this is because the documentation around what a root path is, is confusing.

For example, given 
/foo/foobar.txt
/foo/bar/

what is a segment of 1.

Also,

what is the first path in:
/foo/
/foo/bar/
/foo/bar/foobar.txt

Are the 2 empty directories considered when computing the first path.

We should make sure the documentation is clear, and the uses of the dynamic path computer are consistent.
Comment 1 Jeff McAffer CLA 2009-04-22 03:08:00 EDT
I believe that segment numbering etc follows the Path model.

Also, the computers are (should be) basically dumb.  They don't know empty from full.  Give it a path and it does its thing.  Of course you could write one that did complicated stuff but that is not an inherent part of the computers.
Comment 2 Eclipse Webmaster CLA 2019-09-06 16:18:51 EDT
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet.

If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.
Comment 3 Ed Merks CLA 2020-02-20 04:37:52 EST
I assume it's been reviewed and no action was taken.