commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Re: [beanutils] moving reflection classes out of beanutils
Date Sat, 07 Dec 2002 21:12:22 GMT
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 08:57 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 scolebourne@btopenworld.com wrote:
>
> ...
>> BTW. I agree that the [lang] charter would need to be reworked to
>> clarify the inclusion of 'reflection'.
>
> "This proposal is to create a package of Java utility classes for the
> classes that are in java.lang's hierarchy, or are considered to be so
> standard as to justify existence in java.lang."
>
> java.lang.reflect :) The proposal, nice and umbrella-like as it is, refers
> to anything that provides Utils for the java.lang.reflect classes.

yep. the reflection classes are definitely in-scope.

i think that people would be less worried about lang expanding into a 
grand, uber-utility framework if the second part of the charter could be 
tightened up a little.

"or are considered to be so standard as to justify existence in java.lang.
"

can be interpreted fairly broadly.

AFAIK no one's objected to the scope of the released version.

of the newer packages, reflect is clearly in-scope but there is some 
debate about whether it's the best place for those classes.

whether functor is in scope is debatable. no one objected at the time but 
it would be possible to create a reasoned argument that they are 'standard'
  but not 'so standard' as to justify inclusion.

(not that i'm advocating moving them out. i just think we need to think 
about these things.)

- robert


--
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