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: [collections][lang] Functors, pre-vote
Date Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:44:04 GMT

On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 08:39 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
>> Thus the only viable solutions are:
>>
>> Solution (a)
>> functors in [lang]
>> [collections] depends on [lang]
>>
>> Solution (b)
>> functors in [functor]
>> [collections] depends on [functor]
>>
>> Solution (c)
>> functors in [collections]
>>
>> Any more views. Is [functor] viable??
>
> [functor] seems fine. The charter definitely pushes us towards small
> components, and this is a viable way of managing a library [with
> its own set of obvious negatives]. I'm all for the functor package as is
> in Lang being promoted to Functor [yeah, were back to patterns but with a
> better PROPOSAL].

+1

> Does it matter if [functor] and [lang] have circular dependencies? Not
> that they will.

it appears that [functor] will need to depend on [lang] for exception 
nesting.

hopefully, lang will not need to depend on functor. if it does, then maybe 
it shows that the factoring has gone a bit wrong and we need to think 
about it again.

- 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