Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 71548 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2002 00:01:21 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Dec 2002 00:01:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 19380 invoked by uid 97); 31 Dec 2002 00:02:39 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 19352 invoked by uid 97); 31 Dec 2002 00:02:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 19340 invoked by uid 98); 31 Dec 2002 00:02:38 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:01:14 -0800 (PST) From: Rodney Waldhoff To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [collections][lang] Functors vote result In-Reply-To: <007e01c2b05c$438896e0$a21529d9@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <20021230154752.Q9026-100000@icarus.apache.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: localhost 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I'm not sure these two proposals should necessarily be considered mutually exclusive. It might be silly to approve both, but the answer to "which vote wins" could legitimately be "both". On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > Two votes were taken on functors: > > Vote #1: > http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg13389.html > Make [collections] depend on [lang], Functors located in [lang] > +1 Stephen, Henri, Scott > no other votes > This vote would be treated as a 'product change lazy consensus' [1]. It > passes this. Consider my to -1 on that proposal, at least until the concerns expressed there are addressed in one way or another. > > Vote #2: > http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg13769.html > Create new [functor] component (presumably for [collections] to depend on, > although not actually stated) > +1 Rodney, Morgan > +0 Craig, Martin > -1 Costin, Stephen > If this vote is to create a new sandbox component, then by the commons > charter anyone can do this without a vote. As stated, that proposal is to create a new commons component named functor, with the described scope. > If the vote is for collections to > depend on a new component in commons proper, As stated, "Other components and projects that apply the functor idiom are encouraged but not required to use and extend the Functor implementation." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: