Matt Benson wrote at Dienstag, 12. Mai 2009 15:11:
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> From: Jörg Schaible
>> Subject: Re: [all] Core library dependencies [was COLLECTIONS 3.3
>> release] To: dev@commons.apache.org
>> Date: Tuesday,
Matt Benson wrote:
What [functor] needs is the confidence to stand up and say
"hey, come and use me, here's what I offer".
I somewhat resent the implication that I and others might be trying to buffalo
> [functor] into "proper" status, but I'm known for paranoia, so forgive me
> if I've read mo
James Carman wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
The 'functors' in [collections] and [functor] are very different:
I would argue that they're not inherently different, though. A
Predicate in collections-speak is the same thing as a UnaryPredicate
in functor-spea
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> The 'functors' in [collections] and [functor] are very different:
> http://commons.apache.org/collections/api-release/org/apache/commons/collections/package-summary.html
> http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/functor/apidocs/org/apache/comm
--- On Tue, 5/12/09, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> From: Stephen Colebourne
> Subject: Re: [all] Core library dependencies [was COLLECTIONS 3.3 release]
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 6:29 AM
>
> From: John Bollinger
> >
--- On Tue, 5/12/09, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> From: Jörg Schaible
> Subject: Re: [all] Core library dependencies [was COLLECTIONS 3.3 release]
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 7:54 AM
> John Bollinger wrote at Dienstag, 12.
> Mai 2009 14:19:
>
John Bollinger wrote at Dienstag, 12. Mai 2009 14:19:
>
>
> Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> The 'functors' in [collections] and [functor] are very different:
>
> Thanks for clearing that up. It obviously moots my argument as it applies
> to Collections / Functor, though I think the distinction be
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> The 'functors' in [collections] and [functor] are very different:
Thanks for clearing that up. It obviously moots my argument as it applies
to Collections / Functor, though I think the distinction between private
dependencies and public ones is still generally releva
From: John Bollinger
> Which is exactly why Collections should not copy Functor. Either Functor
> should be absorbed back into Collections, or Collections should have
> Functor as a dependency, for otherwise users must maintain separate
> functors for use with Collections and for other purposes.
James Carman wrote:
>On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> James Carman wrote at Montag, 11. Mai 2009 13:17:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible
>>> wrote:
I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In
this case it means m
On 11/05/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> > James Carman wrote at Montag, 11. Mai 2009 13:17:
> >
> >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible
> >> wrote:
> >>> I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> James Carman wrote at Montag, 11. Mai 2009 13:17:
>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible
>> wrote:
>>> I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In
>>> this case it means more or less to include comple
James Carman wrote at Montag, 11. Mai 2009 13:17:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>> I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In
>> this case it means more or less to include complete functor into
>> collections just for sake of no dependency.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In this
> case it means more or less to include complete functor into collections
> just for sake of no dependency. So, why had been functor created at all?
Functors can be
Hi Hen,
Henri Yandell wrote at Sonntag, 10. Mai 2009 03:27:
> +1 on the low level libraries having no dependencies. C+P is a fine
> way to share - we just, as Torsten points out, need to use smart ways
> of C+Ping.
>
> +1 to Stephen on backwards compat (which is probably surprising given
> how m
+1 on the low level libraries having no dependencies. C+P is a fine
way to share - we just, as Torsten points out, need to use smart ways
of C+Ping.
+1 to Stephen on backwards compat (which is probably surprising given
how much I argue with him on that subject).
I agree with it - but it frustrate
Yawn.
Personally, I can't believe how hard it is to understand that
dependencies for the core commons components are BAD. We're talking
about [lang], [collections], [io], [codec] and probably a few others.
For example, [functor] should be able to stand on its own two feet
without needing to m
17 matches
Mail list logo
