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: [beanutils] PROPOSAL: eliminate core dependency on collections
Date Mon, 10 May 2004 21:54:41 GMT

On 10 May 2004, at 12:55, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:

> On Fri, 7 May 2004, Simon Kitching wrote:
>
>> I guess the recent proposal to bundle the (un-renamed) ArrayStack 
>> class
>> from collections with BeanUtils falls into (2) or (4). I initially 
>> voted
>> +1 on this, but have to admit I'm starting to rethink this. This
>> particular case does have some redeeming features, in that ArrayStack 
>> is
>> a very stable class and so bypasses *in this case* the concerns
>> expressed by Martin Cooper. And it's only a temporary solution until
>> BeanUtils 2.0 which will remove the dependency on this class from the
>> public API. But I would agree it's not a good precedent.
>>
>> Ok, feel free to tear into my arguments :-)
>>
>
> Note that copying ArrayStack directly from collections to beanutils 
> isn't
> really fixing any versioning issues, and may even be introducing some. 
>  If
> the goal is to remove the dependency on ArrayStack entirely, then why 
> not
> simply do so?  I don't see how the interim dependency on
> commons-collections is substantially different from an interim 
> dependency
> on a class copied from commons-collections.

i'd be equally happy copying the classes but the source seemed easier...

the main problem is that there are incompatibilities between 
collections 2.1 and collections 3.0. having a definite dependency on 
either would have caused problems downstream for users. this is a 
definite worry for downstream library, framework and application 
developers who use digester and beanutils. (the size of the new 
collections jar is a secondary consideration.)

i'd have been happy to depend on some sort of small and compatible jar 
distributed by the collections team but stephen has looked into 
splitting up collections and it doesn't seem to make much sense (at 
least for most users). if the collections team were able to ship a jar 
satisfying the needs of beanutils, digester (and the downstream 
framework and container developers who depend on them) then i'd be 
happy to remove the source and depend on that instead.

- robert


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message