Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > > > > Ah, the good old discussion about commons vs. avalon. Great! > > It's not a discussion, it's a simple fact. > If a component has no needed dependencies to Avalon Framework, it should > go in Commons. > Agreed.
> >>Now more specific points: > >>- xmlutil -1: seems like a package for xml-commons, no Avalon dependency > >> > > > > Hmm, xmlutil provides Avalon components. I'm fine with moving them if > > xml-commons wants to have a dependency on avalon. > > Sorry, I somehow looked at another xmlutil package I had on my hd, in > fact yes, they are Avalon xml components. > > +1 > Ah, this saves my day! > BTW, I would /personally/ not call them xmlutil, but simply xml, as > javax.xml... > Usually *util is used for helper classes and static methods, which is > not the case here. > I think it was called xml but renamed later - or do I suffer from a weak memory? Carsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
