commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [collections] Size and scope issues
Date Mon, 03 May 2004 07:11:57 GMT
i definitely agree that one jar is the best solution for many users. 
for those users for whom jar size is a big issue, then i'd say for that 
for many use cases rolling a custom version (possibly repackaged) is 
the best approach. (i have heard that this is how BEA re-uses the 
commons logging stuff.)

but we've been hearing that for some users - many of them influential 
open source developers - this approach is unsatisfactory. one of the 
main aims for jakarta commons was to facilitate re-use of library code 
between open source projects. there are a few of ASF projects who are 
refusing to use any jakarta commons components on principle now for 
this reason. (they want small, tight libraries.) i suspect that this is 
partly political but there is a kernel of truth in the criticisms. it's 
best to think about this kind of issue early before a momentum 

certainly, i'm keen to see digester 2 (if and when it comes along) 
factored into a small core with minimal dependencies together with 
optional extensions. the binary distribution would contain both a 
single complete jar and a set of multiple jars. i hope that this should 
be able to satisfy most users and since this is just a build issue, i 
suspect that the maintenance would be minimal.

- robert

On 3 May 2004, at 00:41, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

> So what problem are we solving? Adding extra jar files alongside the
> complete built one creates classpath problems for users, an old 
> version of
> the 'all' jar overriding a later version of the 'part' jar or vice 
> versa.
> General chaos and confusion.
> People so have the ability to build their own jar files with just the
> classes they need.
> Oh, and I'd also suggest that more jar files does involve more work
> (maintaining and releasing), and there's a distinct lack of active
> committers on collections as it is ;-)
> Stephen
>> On 24 Apr 2004, at 04:33, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>>> A neat ideal, but perceptions of "really common" versus "rarely used"
>>> seem to be awfully personal.  Kinda reminds me of earlier commons-dev
>>> discussions trying to create a "commons core" JAR that included all 
>>> of
>>> the "really common" commons JARs, and none of the others.  Needless 
>>> to
>>> say, there was no consensus on what the contents should be :-).
> From: "robert burrell donkin" <>
>> i wonder whether it might be possible to separate out a core jar
>> containing just the basic interfaces and then split the 
>> implementations
>> into several themed jars. i still think that this should be in 
>> addition
>> to releasing a single jar containing everything, though.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message