> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 5:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [lang] Builders complete? > > > > from: Steve Downey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Post release, there should also be a discussion of introspectionX > > versions of > > the reflectionX methods. I know we ruled it out of scope > for [lang], since > > it's more of a bean thing. But the builder classes aren't > things that > > [beanutils] is really doing, at least at the moment. And > duplicating the > > XBuilder classes in [beanutils] doesn't really seem to me > to be a good way of > > serving our clients. > > This is the cyclic dependency issue I raised a long time ago. > There's no simple solution. Unless [beanutils] merges with [lang].
Is there any reason why [beanutils] couldn't merge with [lang]. IMO, reflection vs. introspection is on the same level (language), and most people are up at the application level anyway. Is anyone willing to support the merge? I am. Better yet, is anyone UNWILLING/AGAINST beanutils merging with lang? Scott -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
