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: [collections] New commons proper component - collections-functors
Date Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:54:52 GMT
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 19:38 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Thanks, Stephen.  While I still think 1, 5 are problematic, your
> responses to the other points are enough to move me to +1
> 
> Phil
> On 11/29/05, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > -0 for following reasons:
> > >
> > > 1. I am having a hard time understanding what the value
> > > commons-functor by itself is going to be.  How do we expect it to
> > > "grow" - independently of collections - other than by replicating
> > > functionality in [functor]?
> > Functor in the sandbox may well be a better designed, purer functor
> > library, but it has not seen any activity in a long time.
> >
> > Collections functor package has had a number of proposed patches for new
> > functors which I have had to reject as they bloat the collections jar
> > file. As an independent jar file, only taken by those who want the
> > collections functors, these new functors could be happily accepted.

it also turns out that james carman and i both use functors extensively
for swing GUIs. (i thought i was the only one with that particular
madness ;) so, there's probably a sufficient micro-community for
functor. 

the sandbox functor component is good but independent and incompatible
design. creating common-functor based on the collections code would not
exclude the possible of including the sandbox code as part of
commons-functor as a generic implementation rather than the specialist
code from collections.

> > > 5. (could be viewed as expansion of 1)  I don't like the idea of
> > > promoting a bare-bones functor library when we have a much more fully
> > > functional one in the sandbox.  Though my French is a little rusty, I
> > > like Robert's idea of a "portmanteaux" and would like to think
> > > carefully about that option before creating a functor component
> > > completely independent of [functor].
> 
> > [sandbox-functor] has *nothing* in common with [collection-functor]. Nor
> > is it going to. The source and approaches are just different.

is see that as a good thing, not bad :)

thinking back, one of the sources of arguments about functors has been
that the functors in collections are specialist (and not a general
library) but the functors in the sandbox as generic (and so not so
convenient when used in the specialist domain of collections). so maybe
there would be space for both in a common-functor component...

- 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