commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Varszegi <>
Subject Re: [lang] Converters [was:Question suggestion]
Date Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:39:51 GMT
My Yahoo mail just burped and I don't think it sent my message, but I was attempting to email
a reminder about this.  I don't think we should let it go by the wayside.


--- Ola Berg <> wrote:
> > 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
> 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
> footprint).
> Another argument: If converter wasn't in lang, we would create cross dependencies, since
> are that lang can benefit from the basic conversion mechanisms, and that converter would
> 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:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus  Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

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

View raw message