commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <>
Subject RE: Commons Util 1.0 release candidate 1
Date Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:07:34 GMT
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 10:05, Waldhoff, Rodney wrote:
> Michael A. Smith wrote:
> > To me, at least, that implies we'd have an 
> > "io" component, a "lang" component, etc, 
> > where the appropriate utilities would 
> > reside.  Things like util.CollectionsUtils 
> > would move to commons.collections.Collections 
> > or collections.Utils or something. 
> I couldn't agree more. It would depend on the proposal of course, but I'm
> pretty sure I'd -1 any proposal for a component with a scope as generic as
> Util's seems to be, especially when it already contains stuff the overlaps
> with the scope of existing commons components.
> > After looking at some of the other classes in the util 
> > component, I believe this is a better way to go, 
> > especially with collections related classes.  There's 
> > already some duplication between utils and 
> > collections (SequencedHashtable vs. SequencedHashMap, 
> > BufferCache vs. LRUMap, and EnumerationIterator vs. 
> > EnumerationIterator).  If "collection" related 
> > utility classes went into collections rather 
> > than util, this may not occur.  
> Some "guidelines" from the charter that seem to speak on this point:
> "1. The primary unit of [...] release is the package."
> "3. Each package must have a clearly defined purpose, scope, and API -- Do
> one thing well, and keep your contracts."
> I'd much rather see Util broken up into multiple, independent component
> proposals (perhaps along the package lines you all have been discussing),
> each with a well defined purpose.  A monolithic "component" like Util seems
> like a step back from the reason commons was created.

The package consists of utilities for several different arenas of use, I
think it's nice keeping them under the util umbrella but things could be
split out into separate packages and what if from these different
packages separate JARs could be produced? People could then take the
biggie if they wanted or, for example, take commons-util-file.jar
separately. But if these were in separate modules that would bother me
either, I just like the util family name.

>  - Rod

Jason van Zyl

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message