commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [all] Core library dependencies [was COLLECTIONS 3.3 release]
Date Mon, 11 May 2009 12:43:54 GMT
On 11/05/2009, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:
>  > James Carman wrote at Montag, 11. Mai 2009 13:17:
>  >
>  >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de>
>  >> wrote:
>  >>> I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In
>  >>> this case it means more or less to include complete functor into
>  >>> collections just for sake of no dependency. So, why had been functor
>  >>> created at all?
>  >>
>  >> Functors can be used outside the context of collections.
>  >
>  > This is right, but it does not answer the question.

[I've not looked at this, so it may not make sense]

Perhaps the parts of collections that require functors could be moved
to the functor jar?

>
> It answers that one question. :)  But seriously, functors can be very
>  useful programming tools.  I use them a LOT in my code.  I think
>  having a generic functors package is a very good idea.
>
>  Also, with the "jar hell" issue, haven't we "fixed" that by deciding
>  that any backward compatibility issues should cause us to jump major
>  version numbers and thus change the package name?
>
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message