On 23 May 2017 at 10:13, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am -0 to -1 regarding the introduction of new components. I'd rather > see us redefine the purpose of commons-lang. The experience of > commons-math has demonstrated, IMO, that such new components will most > likely increase the noise without an associated increase of the > output. > > IMO, c-lang is running well, as it is.
I'm not personally convinced that smaller components solves anything. It gives end users more dependencies to manage, with more potential for clashes. Plus, no-one should be adding a dependency for just a couple of simple methods - thus [lang] needs to be a certain size to have enough useful methods to justify itself. The "competition" is Guava, and that is also a decent size library. Looking to Java 10 and beyond, we might see a way to have one artifact (jar file) contain multiple modules, allowing end-users to depend on parts of [lang] package by package. In such a scenario, it would actually be better to lump more into a single jar file, not less. Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
