commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Germuska <>
Subject Re: Resisting the temptation
Date Fri, 10 May 2002 14:56:01 GMT
>Not having collections.jar in java.util was a transitionary thing, this
>would be a future thing in which either a subset of Commons gets named
>Core just to suit Log4J or coders have to change their code to handle a
>move from Commons-Collections to Commons-Core.

I don't think it's just to suit Log4J though.  I also think it's 
tedious to manage a number of different jars (sure, some tools could 
improve that) -- I think you're right that the ones which map closest 
to the JDK are what belong in the core, so maybe digester doesn't 
belong in there.

Of course, some of the other commons packages you named aren't as 
mature/well-tested as Collections and BeanUtils, but as long as high 
standards were held before things moved into the core, that could be 

At 9:34 AM -0500 5/10/02, Waldhoff, Rodney wrote:
>  > [Concern] 3) Circular dependencies. Log4j depends on commons-digester,
>>  depends on commons-logging which depends on log4j.
>Why not split the commons-logging interface from the specific
>implementations, for example, by moving the log4j implementation of
>commons-logging into log4j itself?

This sounds more appropriate, if the Log4J community would accept it.

* Joe Germuska    { }
"It's pitiful, sometimes, if they've got it bad. Their eyes get 
glazed, they go white, their hands tremble.... As I watch them I 
often feel that a dope peddler is a gentleman compared with the man 
who sells records."
	--Sam Goody, 1956
tune in posse radio: <>

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

View raw message