RE: DOMWriter proposed change

> I'd like to hear what Christian has to say about this since he wrote the
> DefaultDOMWriter originally and came up with the concept of the
> setLeaveWriterOpen(boolean) method.  I suspect the reason it was

Hey guys, I _will_ respond to this, I promise, but its going to be tomorrow
before I can get to it. I will try to take a few minutes tonight while I'm
studying and ponder it a bit, and then get some kind of opinion put together
by tomorrow...

Christian
----------------------------------------------
Christian Cryder
Internet Architect, ATMReports.com
Project Chair, BarracudaMVC - http://barracudamvc.org
----------------------------------------------
"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jacob Kjome
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Barracuda] DOMWriter proposed change
>
>
> At 02:03 PM 10/1/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: [Barracuda] DOMWriter proposed change
> >
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >Jake just sent an email mentioning proposed changes to DOMLoader that
> >triggered my memory about a change I was thinking of making to DOMWriter
> >and DefaultDOMWriter.
> >
> >Presently the DOMWriter interface provides various versions of a write()
> >method (each for different output types). However DOMWriter does not
> >provide any explanation (in the comments) as to whether or not the
> >implementing class must close the output objects or not.
> DefaultDOMWriter
> >solves this by providing its own "leaveWriterOpen" option that controls
> >this behavior.
> >
> >My proposal is that we remove the "leaveWriterOpen" option from
> >DefaultDOMWriter and provide eplanation in the comments of
> DOMWriter that
> >implementing class MUST NOT close the output. It should be
> stated clearly
> >that it is the responsibility of the class(es) using the DOMWriter to
> >manually close any output streams.
>
> Hmm.... I kind of agree with this in principal, but I'm not sure it will
> make matters any easier for people.  It is just more gruntwork.
>
>
> >My thinking behind this is that since a DOMWriter does not open (create)
> >the output stream, it should therefore also not close it. It
> should simply
> >map input in the form of DOM Nodes to the output.
>
> The problem is that main use-case for the DefaultDOMWriter is...
>
> new DefaultDOMWriter().write(dom, vec.getResponse());
>
> Here we send the response object to the writer and let the DOMWriter open
> up the writer or output stream associated with the response.  Since the
> DOMWriter opens it, it seems like it should close it.  It is also
> much less
> klunky than....
>
> new DefaultDOMWriter().write(dom, vec.getResponse());
> vec.getResponse().getWriter().close();
>
> Actually, would we close the writer or output stream here?  It
> all depends
> on what goes on internally in the DOMWriter implementation.
>
> >Any objections to this change? This shouldn't affect any users
> unless they
> >are using DefaultDOMWriter or the DOMWriter interface on their own. Is
> >anyone using these classes directly in their code? To make the change I
> >would have to make sure I find every instance where DefaultDOMWriter is
> >used within Barracuda and make sure it does not expect the output stream
> >to be automatically closed (adding a manual close where necessary); this
> >shouldn't be too hard.
>
> Hmm... not too hard, but I'm not sure it gains us anything.  We
> could even
> document that it is the responsibility of the implementation to
> decide how
> it deals with opening and closing of writers and output streams.
>
> I'd like to hear what Christian has to say about this since he wrote the
> DefaultDOMWriter originally and came up with the concept of the
> setLeaveWriterOpen(boolean) method.  I suspect the reason it was
> done this
> way was because it is generally the rare case where one would want to
> actually leave the writer or output steam open after the call to the
> write() method.
>
> I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to this, just skeptical
> that it would
> be of benefit.  I'd definitely like to hear more discussion on the topic.
>
> Jake
>
> >Thanks,
> >-shawn
>
> _______________________________________________
> Barracuda mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda