commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [Reflect] Summary of points and relationship with BeanUtils
Date Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:52:03 GMT
On Wednesday, June 19, 2002, at 01:16 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:


> I suspect people's views may be polarised on this section. Both the view 
> 'it
> doesn't matter where the code is' and 'its vital as to where the code is'
> are opinions that have been expressed on this list.

i subscribe to both views :)

my major concerns about the low level introspection code are:

a. we should not duplicate the introspection code

b. the introspection code should be in a component which:

1. is in the commons proper
2. is released now (or will be released very soon)
3. has very few dependencies

>  The section above
> clearly says I'm in the camp that says commons needs a little refactoring,

refactoring makes sense but it should be done in a way that minimizes the 
impact on released components. the refactored code must be made available 
in released components (rather than in the sandbox).

> even if that might have some (minor) public impact on the API.

there's no reason why it should have any impact on the public API. the 
usual house policy is that we delegate and deprecate.

- robert

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

View raw message