commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: Commons server infrastructure proposal
Date Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:48:24 GMT
On 12 Apr 2004, at 22:10, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2004, at 3:43 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:


>> If you don't build a
>> commons for such a things, each new project will have to make it's own
>> implementation.
> That is a good argument, but in geronimo we tend to avoid stuff from 
> jakarta commons as the modules tend to be highly coupled, so if I only 
> want one jar I end up getting 11 mbs of jars.  Now don't get me wrong, 
> I like common libraries, but they need to be highly decoupled, tight 
> and address truly common complex problems (if something is trivial or 
> not common, I'll just copy the code in).

i think that you are being more than a little unfair here. it's not 
anyway near as bad as that. (the only major co-dependency is 

one of the big problems in the jakarta commons is that users want 
everything in one, ready-to-run jar. they want all the features and 
don't really case about downloading 200k rather than 100k.

a lot of people have been talking in pretty derogatory terms about 
jakarta commons on other lists (and in other places) for a while now. 
some of this is quite ill-informed (others, less so) but it's very rare 
for them to come here and discuss the problems that they think they 

i glad to see that dain isn't one of these people :)

it's very easy to say 'jakarta commons is crap' and it's easy to extend 
this into rules such as 'no jakarta commons dependencies'.

but jakarta commons is a community that build components each different 
with an associated sub-community. a fairer approach is to look at each 
component individually, to look into the dependency graph and say (for 
example) 'i'd like to use the commons-digester engine without having a 
dependency on beanutils or collections - is that possible?'.

the major dependencies tend to be inherited from the originators of the 
code (plus commons logging). users seem to be happy with full but heavy 
distributions with all the code they need. so unless developers from 
other projects are willing to discuss the reasons why they need minimal 
dependencies, there is very little chance that distributions will every 
be factored into base and optional jars.

- robert

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

View raw message