commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig R. McClanahan" <>
Subject Re: DBCP status?
Date Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:10:16 GMT

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Serge Knystautas wrote:

> [snip]
> > For some reason there are people against adding commons-logging to DBCP.
> > I don't know of any good reason not to.
> I think it's just because it's to keep the dependency tree thin.  I
> haven't been burned yet, but in some of my apps I have dependencies on
> common libs from 5 higher level apps.  I think eventually I'll get
> burned by 2 different apps requiring 2 different versions of
> commons-beanutils (just to pick one).

There's a couple of interesting notes about this to consider:

* If you are using other commons packages already, you're
  very likely already committed to having commons-logging
  available, as it is quite widely used.  According to Gump's
  cross reference charts, this seems to be true for lots of
  other code as well (the itch that C-L scratches appears to
  have been fairly common).

* If you don't use C-L, then you're either going to mandate
  some specific logging solution, or go without the benefits
  of logging in DBCP.  Neither of those choices seems like
  a particularly good idea for a general purpose component.

* If you really do need two different versions of something
  like commons-beanutils, and the two versions are incompatible
  with each other, then we've failed at a primary mission of
  commons.  In the particular case of beanutils, I know for a
  fact that code needing only the APIs that were there in 1.0
  will still work with 1.6.1, as I've lived through all of them
  (dependence on particular bugs, of course, is another story :-).
  But this is why Commons developers tend to be *very* conservative
  about API changes that are not backwards compatible.

> Serge Knystautas


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

View raw message