commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [lang] Designs and Futures
Date Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:36:16 GMT
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>There are two areas that I see commons as poor at achieving - release early
>>release often and dependencies. The code itself is generally very good
>>(despite what some might say).
> Agreed on both.

Yes.  And I am learning that there is a relation between the two :-(
> As a basic rule, I think it's pretty fair to state that package hierarchy
> should be obeyed as far as dependencies goes. This means that a package's
> classes may not depend on a sibling package, or a child package, but it may
> depend on a super-package or classes within the same package.
> Looking at the Validate example, I think it's pretty small fry. It's in
> the same package as String/ArrayUtils, so logically should be able to
> depend on them, and it's merely the isEmpty methods.
> I'm +1 to maintaining the isEmpty calls, but do agree with Stephen's
> general principle.

I agree; both the principle and (with Stephen) in this (small) case.
>>Finally, it should be noted that [lang] has about 30 open calls, and many
>>are valid. This suggests a wide user base who want this component supported
>>and improved. The issue for us is more to do with [lang] satisfying our own
>>personal isues already, so we don't feel motivated to do anything about it -
>>its not our itch any more. But somehow, we need to at least get 2.1 out,
>>then take it from there.
> Agreed, and I've been slacking.

You're not the only one ;-)


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

View raw message