On 2018-04-29, Matt Sicker wrote: > On 29 April 2018 at 06:24, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you mean by modular in this context. > As in one module/jar per implementation. One module for a zipfs, one for an > sshfs, etc., instead of just "commons-vfs" as a monolith with optional > dependencies. Oh, you've been talking about VFS here. If we tried the same with Compress we'd end up with one or two API jars (compressors could be separate from archivers if we wanted to go to extremes), an SPI jar with the utils package, eight archiver and thirteen compressor implementations. Together with some interdependencies as zip and sevenz would depend on several compressors. While this might be good from a modularization POV it also doesn't sound attractive from a maintentance POV to me :-) Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
