Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 69115 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 08:10:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 08:10:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 20308 invoked by uid 97); 16 Aug 2002 08:10:57 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 20248 invoked by uid 97); 16 Aug 2002 08:10:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 20235 invoked by uid 98); 16 Aug 2002 08:10:55 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) Message-ID: <003a01c244fd$39fd2020$b06f27d9@oemcomputer> From: "Stephen Colebourne" To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" References: Subject: Re: [VOTE] RESULT XxxUtils constructors Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:16:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > Daniel Rall writes: > > > It works, but it's not backwards compatible, nor very fair to one of > > the projects which (in part) orginated the code in question and that > > the Commons documentation system is based on. *shrug* > > > > If a non-private ctor isn't going to fly, it's probably the best > > option proposed so far. > > So I was totally wrong about this, since that API's implementation has > methods which really return null. That won't work with Velocity (or > much else, for that matter). Thanks for the clarification. Now we know that XxxUtils in commons is incompatable with Velocity as it stands. Thus the options are - change Velocity - change commons - tough (fork code) I voted last time, at least in part, on the belief that Velocity could find a way around this. So, I would now reconsider my vote. Daniel - can you clarify why this change to Velocity is unacceptable?: context.putStatic(StringUtils.class) [note the 'static' to indicate to use static methods, not an instance] Stephen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: