commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael A. Smith" <>
Subject Re: [collections] collections depends on lang? (RE: cvs commit: jakarta-commons/collections/src/java/org/apache/commons/collections
Date Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:25:50 GMT
Ok, so I went back to write my little proposal (which I'm not even going 
to mention now).  In order to make sure my proposal was well informed 
and thus a higher chance of being adopted, I went back to take a look at 
previous discussions about commons-core, dependencies between commons 
components, and other related topics.  While very depressing[*], this 
exercise was very informative, and is keeping me from making an 
ill-advised proposal.

Even with the release of a commons-core or a commons-combo or whatever, 
the issue of interdependencies isn't going to go away.  Classes and 
functionality need to be put into the most appropriate classes, and only 
when said functionality is absolutely necessary.

My current thoughts are that maybe this ClassMap shouldn't even be 
there.  While it does provide some interesting functionality that I know 
would be useful for the conversion stuff (as was the original example 
that Hen described), the semantics of the super interface/class is way 
under defined.  And even just adding documentation isn't going to solve 
that, as different people may want different semantics.  I'm beginning 
to think that if someone wants such a functionality they could have 
their project depend on both lang and collections and implement the 
semantics they want on their own.  In other words, I think that ClassMap 
might be a little bit outside the scope of the collections component, 
even if it *is* a map.

btw, an eventual dependency on lang and/or pattern might be acceptable, 
but as Rodney pointed out, ClassMap isn't the best justification for 
doing that at this point.


[*] If you're curious, search archives in June for messages with the 
subject of "architecture", and messages in August with subject of "cross 
dependecy"[sic] and "pattern charter" (case insensitive).  That was 
right before the start of the nearly two-week long debate on public 
constructors. Fun, fun, fun.

Michael A. Smith wrote:
> Agreed.  Care must be taken when adding dependencies, especially to 
> collections and lang.  I have an alternative suggestion, but want to 
> write it up as a more formal proposal.  Hopefully I'll get that done by 
> the end of the weekend.  
> regards,
> michael
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Waldhoff, Rodney wrote:
>>Personally, I'd prefer not to have collections depend upon lang
>>(currently it doesn't depend upon anything else, correct?), at least
>>not if ClassMap is the best justification we have for it.
>>A lot of other packages use Collections, so adding a new dependency to
>>Collections is adding a new dependency to a lot of modules.  We should
>>be very careful and deliberate about that.
>>>Much of the code for getting all the superclasses 
>>>and superinterfaces of a class is coded in the 
>>>upcoming [lang] reflection code. Maybe the next 
>>>collections release should depend on [lang]?
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
>>For additional commands, e-mail: <>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

Michael A. Smith

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

View raw message