> On May 24, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Dave Brosius <dbros...@apache.org> wrote: > > Let's be honest, a Pair class is a bad paradigm, invented for lazyness which > throws away any informative metadata. I'm not sure all of this fighting is > worth it over a this.
Dependency/classpath discussions aside (clearly using “Pair” as an example for the sake of discussion), I agree with Dave here on the strangeness of the concept of a Pair or Tuple: It seems that what we’re taking about is an arbitrarily large, yet finite, collection of one type, and there a substantial number of different ways to represent this. -Rob > > > On 05/24/2017 09:08 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> Le 24/05/2017 à 13:55, Stephen Colebourne a écrit : >> >>> Library A that depends on lang3 returns a Pair. >>> Library B that depends on lang4 takes a Pair. >>> Application cannot pass Pair from A to the B without conversion. >> That's a valid point, but the severity depends on the library. joda-time >> with its date related types is more data centric than lang and its >> static utility classes. The risk of incompatible data structures is >> lower with lang, but the risk of an unsolvable binary incompatibility is >> higher due to its ubiquity. The strategy adopted to mitigate the >> compatibility issues really depends on the usage of the library. >> >> Emmanuel Bourg >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
