commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <GGreg...@seagullsoftware.com>
Subject RE: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
Date Wed, 06 May 2009 00:18:22 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Benson [mailto:gudnabrsam@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:36 PM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 5/5/09, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@btopenworld.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@btopenworld.com>
> > Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
> > To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
> > Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 4:37 PM
> >
> > Matt Benson wrote:
> > > --- On Tue, 5/5/09, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> I'm trying to remember myself! :)  I would
> > think
> > >> collections, since
> > >> that's what this email was regarding.  Is
> > there a
> > >> branch that gets rid
> > >> of Transformer, Closure, and Predicate from
> > collections and
> > >> instead
> > >> uses Functor's versions of these concepts?
> > That's
> > >> what I'd like to
> > >> see (aside from the fact that I'd have to rewrite
> > all my
> > >> nifty
> > >> transformers).
> > >
> > > That subject probably requires a debate.  Stephen
> > didn't want to completely switch to [functor].
> >
> > I think its really important that [collections] has no
> > dependencies. As part of that, I'd also suggest that
> > [functor] shouldn't have dependencies.
> >
> > While I understand the arguments of just picking up another
> > jar if your using it, of tools like maven, and of eating dog
> > food, when push comes to shove, I believe that one of the
> > core conceptual attributes of [collections] is that it
> > stands alone. The list archives contains more detailed
> > discussion on this for those wanting to hunt it down ;-)
> >
> > Given that I am removed from the coding aspects of this
> > these days, I won't -1 any decisions on this. But I will
> > register that I believe my position very strongly.
> >
> 
> I feel differently--how many times do we need to duplicate code that does
> the same damned thing amongst the various components?  For example, we've
> now added MethodUtils to [lang], but [collections] has its own set of code
> supporting InvokerTransformer.  [functor] doesn't have an analogous
> function because it seemed to me silly to keep rewriting and/or copying
> the necessary code.  IMHO we of the Commons need to establish an approach
> for "mixin" components, optional dependencies, svn externals, something,
> to avoid doing this again and again and again.
> 
> br,
> Matt

I feel the same as Matt. It seems that a lot of [commons] projects suffer/benefit from this
no-dependency POV. The *only* reason I can see for this is jar-hell. As I've stated before
on different thread, I never have a significant project that depends on just one commons jar,
I usually have >1 commons jar and >1 other jars from other places. It just seems so
silly and non-XP that every project you pick up has a util package that is a copy of bits
of other projects. They are standalone and so are the bugs.

Gary

> 
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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


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


Mime
View raw message