From kde-devel  Wed Jan 06 08:30:06 1999
From: "Robert Hagemann" <rhagemann () psipenta ! com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 08:30:06 +0000
To: kde-devel
Subject: Re: Directories named *.kdelnk : bug in kfm or KSimpleConfig ?
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-devel&m=91561160715719

Hi,

take my apologies for getting philosophical, but on answering Patrick
Dowler:
<cite>
Of course, having kfm try to use KSimpleConfig and seeing if it worked is a
valid way for kfm to check the thing.kdelnk. If KSimpleConfig is going to
check (it really should) kfm might just as well use that check rather than
duplicate it... I recall in java that I always just try to open the file by
creating a FileInputStream and catching exceptions, rather than checking
that
it exists, chekcing permissions, and then opening it (FIS does the same
checks I do, presumably).
</cite>

This reminds me on letting Your child touch the oven, in order to know
if it's heated...

A class (KSimpleConfig) should be the abstraction of an entity with
a set of related responsibilities. (You know CRC cards?)
IMHO, the responsibility of KSimpleConfig is to provide configuration
information and *not* to check for ordinary files, permissions a.s.o.

I think,
- kfm has to check the file, because it's its responsility to
provide a valid context for KSimpleConfig, and
- KSimpleConfig has to check the file bcause it has to handle
error conditions gracefully.

If both classes want to have a similar job done, the should request the
service of just another class (A file checker class).

Just my two pence...

Ciao
Robert Hagemann
.