Drop keyvalue in favour of Pair? :) More seriously; keep Pair (or keyvalue if that's a better name) in Lang, and make Collections depend on Lang for the core pair concept.
Hen On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All: > > I am now realize that what we are stumbling along with Pair has already been > done in org.apache.commons.collections.keyvalue, generics and all. Different > class names but the same ideas. > > So... it sure would be nice to avoid creating the same thing in [lang] but > with different class names. > > What are our options: > - Continue blindly > - Converge both components on the same class names. [lang] has 3 classes, > [collections] has 8. > - Drop Pair in favor of org.apache.commons.collections.keyvalue. > > I feel we need a good story here before releasing 3.0 with 3 new Pair > classes. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Thank you, > Gary > > http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ > http://garygregory.com/ > http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ > http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
