> -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Benson [mailto:gudnabr...@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 <scolebou...@btopenworld.com> > wrote: > > > From: Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@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 <ja...@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-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
