commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig R. McClanahan" <>
Subject Re: property naming (Re: cvs commit: jakarta-commons/digester
Date Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:16:56 GMT

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rall wrote:

> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:23:53 -0800
> From: Daniel Rall <>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <>
> Subject: Re: property naming (Re: cvs commit: jakarta-commons/digester
> "Craig R. McClanahan" <> writes:
> > both are equally valid, but consistency within a particular
> > philosophy is even more important than choosing one or the other.
> I don't agree.  As I mentioned in my message in response to Jeff, and
> as you say above, build files following the Struts style make the
> (huge) assumption that the builder has setup their source trees in a
> single way.  Though they are sometimes written to allow for alternate
> configurations, the unnecessary complexity introduced by the extra
> parameterization required to allow flexiblity for those who have not
> setup their source tree in a manner matching that of the build file
> author is not a good trade-off.  Better to follow the proven precedent
> set by Unix years and years ago (I'm sure you remember, Craig *impish
> wink*) which has proven to work well.

The lib.repo approach puts an equally huge burden for people who are
actively developing one or more of the Commons components -- just because
it makes *your* life easier doesn't help *me* :-).  I'm still going to
have to create the bazillion individual properties to override the global
assumption that all the JARs are in one place.

In that respect, the two approaches are equivalent in the sense that they
work well for some and not well for others.

> - Dan


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

View raw message