Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 5762 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2004 16:46:45 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Apr 2004 16:46:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 99500 invoked by uid 500); 25 Apr 2004 16:46:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 99433 invoked by uid 500); 25 Apr 2004 16:46:34 -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 99404 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2004 16:46:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hume.tsdinc.steitz.com) (209.249.229.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Apr 2004 16:46:34 -0000 Received: from Lavoie.tsdinc.steitz.com ([209.249.229.4]) by hume.tsdinc.steitz.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:46:31 -0400 Received: from steitz.com ([130.13.97.180]) by Lavoie.tsdinc.steitz.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:46:31 -0400 Message-ID: <408BEB6C.5090105@steitz.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:46:36 -0700 From: Phil Steitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [general] library management Was: [lang] Markup stuff on lang??? References: <20040419201836.31C511A41@umbongo.flamefew.net> <408B700A.5030202@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <408B700A.5030202@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2004 16:46:31.0384 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC852580:01C42AE4] X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N matthew.hawthorne wrote: > Henri Yandell wrote: > >> So, after Commons-1.0's release, Commons-Collection-1.0.jar would have >> been spun off and Commons-2.0 would not have contained that jar. >> Collections-1.0 may even spin off another project, primitives, functors, >> collections-weird or whatever, but they must do it by sending that code >> back to Commons-2.0, not by having it become its own new project. > > > > With the proposed system, I'm pessimistic that even a 1.0 release would > ever happen. > The required amount of coordination between projects just seems impossible. I agree. Another consequence of code fragmentation is test and documentation consistency. Pulling things apart and recombining would make maintenance of tests and documentation a major PITA. > > It it an interesting idea, but what would happen the first time that I > need something in > the commons-collections CVS HEAD? I'm confused how the development of > individual > commons projects would coincide with the politics surrounding the > communal releases, > which basically just points back to my original statement. > > A part of the problem that it seems you're trying to solve is the > infamous "too many jars". > Maybe I'm just being stubborn, but I don't feel that I've ever heard a > coherent > argument as to why this is an actual problem and not just somebody's > preference. I don't know the answer to this, but I agree that we have never reached anything close to a consensus on this subject and I suspect that it really does come down to user preference and characteristics of the user environment. We should take discussion of this topic to the user list. > > If commons is guilty of anything, it's probably just being a little > loose with inter-project > dependencies. The digester-collections situation which has been > discussed lately is > a perfect example where cut-and-paste would have probably been a better > solution. Another hard problem. Cut-and-paste is appealing, but is essentially forking and has some drawbacks, including: 1) If you care about tests and documentation, you need to hack in and maintain the associated tests and docs as well 2) If you decide at a later time that there is more in the source package that you want / need, you may be SOL 3) Forking / fragmentation fragments eyeballs The last item above points to a whole range of community issues that makes me think that we are better off defining and maintaining a stable set of reasonably scoped components. While some Commons components are indeed "large," it is still possible for both developers and users to learn their way around even the big ones (e.g. [collections]). This has lots of benefits that we (both users and developers) would lose if the components effectively lost their individual identities. Obviously, the hard part is in defining "reasonable scope," and managing the size-dependencies tradeoff, but I don't think that the answer is to throw in the towel and drop the idea of individual Commons components. Just my HO. Could be I am missing Hen's point. Phil > > How does everyone else feel? Does commons have an actual problem with > releases > and packaging? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org