commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ola Berg" <ola.b...@ports.se>
Subject Re: [lang] Converters [was:Question suggestion]
Date Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:26:32 GMT
> I would prefer participation in NEW project [converter].
> [lang] is used only for general purpose functionality (if I understand
> correctly).
> In such case it would be possible to put some specific conversion
> functionality. Not only for simple types.

Wouldn't it be better if the base mechanisms for converter was in lang, together with conversions
for simple types? The specific conversions belong IMO not in a converter package covering
anything from Date to ImaginaryNumber to ResultSet to Money), but in the different specific
packages where they are actually needed. A converter package containing specific conversions
for many sorts of types would be too broad in scope. 

Instead, the converter mechanism in itself would be really lightweight, and you only need
a dependency to lang (which you probably want anyway, given lang's general usefulness and
small footprint).

Another argument: If converter wasn't in lang, we would create cross dependencies, since chances
are that lang can benefit from the basic conversion mechanisms, and that converter would benefit
from lang (and needs to be dependent upon lang if the converter is a variant of Transformation
which is a variant of Closure/Command/Whatever).

Basic conversion could live happily in lang together with basic Predicate logic, other kinds
of transformations etc. Conversion is such a basic pattern.

/O


--
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