commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [lang] What's left for 2.0 (WAS: [collections] Primitive collecti ons (was Entities and LGPL))
Date Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:55:51 GMT

On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Gary Gregory wrote:

> We have over the last couple of weeks started "what's left for 2.0" message
> threads a couple of times, do people here want a 2.0 (or a 2.0 beta first)?

Yep. Time for another one soon. [email I mean]. I'm in favour of just
going straight to a 2.0 rather than pushing a beta out. I'm not sure that
reusable libraries as abstract as ours [and not a service like maven,
tomcat etc] gain much from a beta release.

Apologies for some of the questions coming up and for reopening of old
emails, I've been gone for 3 weeks.

> Should we consider:
> (1) IntHashMap as a non-public member of [lang]
> In for 2.0, or defer to discuss (2)?

This was for optimisation? Sounds good to go in.

> (2) "all his other utility code"
> Does not affect [lang] per se but it is becoming clear that keeping [lang]
> and [collections] not inter-dependent will introduce duplication of
> functionality or odd placement of functionality (IntHashMap in lang, not
> collection). Duplicating code is something I am really not fond of.

I think this is a clear case of a good reason for allowing duplication.
Optimisation involves lots of yucky things [and rarely anything nice].
Duplication is a yucky thing, but the optimisation is more important.


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

View raw message