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] ConstructorUtils in beanutils: a bad idea
Date Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:59:06 GMT
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 03:25 PM, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:

<snip>

> Looking through the archives, I now see the thread named
> "[beanutils][lang][PROPOSAL] deprecated beanutils version of MethodUtils"
> [1] which apparently should have been flagged "[VOTE]", if that was
> intended to be a binding vote.

no, that thread wasn't binding. that's one reason why i wanted to try to 
engage you in debate rather than just -1'ing the commit straight away :)

> I'd be OK with leaving beanutils as the repository for reflection oriented
> stuff.  In light of this thread, I think I'd prefer to create true
> reflection oriented commons component.  I'm strongly opposed to moving a
> bunch of stuff into lang because it seems somehow central or widely
> applicable.  I'd rather see a bunch of focused modules with well defined
> scope (however tiny) than a grand utilties framework, and my reading of
> the commons charter says it agrees with me.

though i agree about your point in general, the reflection code fits 
perfectly into lang's spec. they are utility classes for package java.lang.
reflect.

AFAIK class and reflect(ion?) were intended to be 
introspection-alternatives. they need to rely on solid, low level 
reflection utilities.

- 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