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: [digester][PROPOSAL] optional dependencies
Date Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:07:06 GMT
On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 11:17 PM, Simon Kitching wrote:

<snip>

> I guess if each optional feature is in its own package, eg
>   org.apache.commons.digester.optional.ororules
> then the package.html for that module can document the libs required for
> that feature. A user of feature "ororules" can therefore check the
> package description for that feature to find the dependencies.

maybe we could group together on the basis of the dependency. certainly, 
we'd need to make the dependencies very clear in the javadocs.

> Once concern: if "core" and "optional" are separated, then:
> (a)
> There can't be any factory methods on Digester for optional rule
> classes. This is unfortunate, as most users won't know that a Rule
> exists if it doesn't have a factory method on Digester.

that's life :)

it's usually possible to factor the abstraction so that the optional 
dependency is simply one implementation. if this is done then it's 
possible to include hooks in the core without adding the dependencies 
(which remain in the adapter classes which can be plugged in). for example,
  see RegexRules and RegexMatcher.

> (b)
> If the javadoc for "core" and "optional" are separated, then it will be
> even more difficule for users to discover what optional features exist.

i'd prefer a single set of javadocs even if we ship two jars.

- robert


Mime
View raw message