commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [BeanUtils] Progressing towards a 1.8.0 release
Date Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:50:34 GMT
On 7/17/07, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/17/07, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/14/07, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > > Henri Yandell wrote:
> > > > One area for discussion is the split between the optional Collections
> > > > component and the 'Core' beanutils. Do we maintain that, or should we
> > > > just fold the code back together?
> > > >
> > > > 1.7.0 shipped three versions:
> > > >
> > > > commons-beanutils-1.7.0.jar
> > > > commons-beanutils-core-1.7.0.jar
> > > > commons-beanutils-collections-1.7.0.jar
> > > >
> > > > where the first is the sum of the second and third.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I think we should just merge them back together. It's not
> > > > worth the effort.
> > >
> > > The purpose is to avoid forcing users to take dependencies that they are
> > > not interested in, [collections] in this case. As such I think that the
> > > split is a Good Thing.
> >
> > Main problems with this are that we didn't do that. We kept a merged
> > version for the normal beanutils jars, and released a couple of lesser
> > jars that are probably not used.
> >
> > Given that BeanUtils is looking pretty old and tired, I'm not sure its
> > users really want to discover classes missing when next they upgrade
> > the beanutils jar. In which case, we're just wasting effort by having
> > a separate pair of jars.
> >
> > My view is that we have the following options:
> >
> > 1) Merge em back in and just release the 1 jar.
> > 2) Split them; do not release a beanutils.jar (or if we do, it's
> > beanutils-core renamed) and setup beanutils-collections as a separate
> > component in Commons or as a child of beanutils with core as an
> > equivalent child (ie: Maven2 multiproject).
>
> I don't want to do a maven multi-project - but I also don't see whats
> wrong with releasing the three jars as they were last time - as I said
> eariler in this thread - merge in the bean-collections sub-project,
> but use an assembly to re-create the core and bean-collections jars.
> As attached artifacts then people would have the option to depend on
> those if they so desired (as my understanding of maven goes).

Assemblies work except you only get a default manifest - not sure
where I got the attachment idea from, can't find any reference to that
- so I think we should keep it simple and stick to option #1

Niall

> Niall
>
> > Hen
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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