Worry not, I consider code duplication an affront to my extreme/agile programmer creds as much as the next guy/gal.
This said, yes, I am proposing duplication. Over the years, when I've mentioned one commons component depending on another, tomatoes start flying. There is a definitive camp that really wants standalone components. I assume there are the folks that are RAM or disk challenged by their runtime environments. My current context is a big app server, we deliver ~100 third party libraries, some we use directly, others are dragged in transitively. To give you an idea, we embed Jetty and CXF, so that's a big pile just there. For my sanity, the less code the better, the less jars the better, thankfully, both Jetty and CXF deliver 'all-in-one' jars, but their dependencies are all individual jars. Ideally, I would but all 'commons commons' code in [lang] when that makes sense, like with LetterCase, and have all the other components depend on [lang]. Tomatoes? Gary On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > Le 04/04/2013 22:12, sebb a écrit : > > > The enum is two-state only; the duplication is tiny. > > The duplication will create a confusion in projects using lang and codec > (which is quite common). Typically the auto import popup in IntelliJ > will suggest the two alternatives when trying to resolve the LetterCase > enum, and the hesitation to select the good one is at least equivalent > to the unintuitive boolean value for upper/lower cases. > > Emmanuel Bourg > > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
