commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Juozas Baliuka" <bali...@centras.lt>
Subject Re: Re: [all commons] Proposal: CommonsCommons package
Date Sun, 16 Jun 2002 06:09:27 GMT
Hi,
I think the most simple solution is to split "redistributables" like
commons-collections.jar
commons-transform.jar
.....................................................

It is nothing bad if some common class is maintained in collections.




> >This requires agreement from collections as its not
> >backwardsly
> >compatable
>
> Well, for copying the classes and interfaces in another package, one
doesn\'t need their opinion. On the other hand: for them to use this other
package, it is all dependent on their opinion and their opinion only.
>
> >Thus there is a time factor there.
> [snip]
> >Architecture/patterns/design is fine, but in the end
> >we need code.
>
> True. I can supply code, implementing the patterns I have suggested (spent
last two years trying different methods to implement them).
>
> But consensus is needed at some level for others to use the common
implementations (I guess the commons project as a whole has the same
situation in relation to the other projects: \"Hey, use _our_ stuff
instead!\").
>
> What I said was (removing the words \'patterns\', \'architecture\' or
\'design\'): reach agreement on how a general thing is to be done. Without
the agreement between at least two component groups, the whole idea of
single implementation of the general mechanisms are of no use anyway.
>
> Java offers this possibility for fine grain binary object reuse. Done
right it translates into a massive heck of many things achieved with
absolutely minimal effort. And even if such an ideal case is never to
happen, one single general mechanism is a bargain.
>
> But it is dependent on 1) someone seeing how a certain mechanism could be
used in more contexts than now, and 2) everybody else\'s ability to
acknowledge what this person has seen.
>
> This will probably mean a slower pace. The role of such a \"general reuse
project\" is often to come in afterwards, suggesting refactoring of existing
API:s (not necessarily afterwards but in practice this is often the case).
If and only if the benefits of refactoring are so great that it is worth
doing, it will be done. If not, the whole idea is pointless in practice
(albeit fine in theory).
>
> /O
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message