Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=DVI4hFBlUcgVwXhlx+aCVfMUSe1ZyzaYo+GkAfVK46e3ju5POsTDhWCWgc5p3ive1m+gWKRJ3IV2pnKW1AKSgh6vXafWr24IlKT95F/LXvuvYHA1aTzM5OiFXEL8EjQSonU2mO+VVtX+mJj6JsZ76QM3Cno4dUMmIF75TSpDoM4=
  ;
Message-ID: <20051129130401.13877.qmail@web86509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:04:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New commons proper component - collections-functors
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <224f32340511290031n2e6cb55ft19c23e7a220a6f8e@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

--- Thomas Dudziak <tomdzk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/05, Stephen Colebourne
> <scolebourne@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > TransformerUtils -> [collection-functors]
> > PredicateUtils -> [collection-functors]
> > ClosureUtils -> [collection-functors]
> > FactoryUtils -> [collection-functors]
> >
> > Transformer -> [collections]
> > Predicate -> [collections]
> > Closure -> [collections]
> > Factory -> [collections]
> 
> If the functors (and you should choose a new name,
> its much too close
> to commons-functor)
The new component is [collection-functors], so there
should be no confusion.

> If the functors are so closely tied to
> commons-collections, why
> don't you distribute the commons-collections lib in
> two variants ? One
> could contain only the core functionality, say
> commons-collections-core.jar, and the other the
> complete collections
> lib, say commons-collections-full.jar.
> Do you expect the new component to have a higher
> release cycle than
> commons-collections itself ? If not, than IMHO that
> would not justify
> a new commons component.

I do expect different release cycles going forward.
There is only a small tie between the two bits of code
(4 interfaces).

What we are arguing is that delivering two jars within
one project actually *hides* what is really going on,
which is two separately released codebases. This
clarifies the end result by making truly independent
projects.

Stephen


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