Steve Downey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 26 September 2002 12:27 pm, Berin Loritsch wrote: > > Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > > In the same way as [logging], by not being a regexp package itself. > > > > > > Of course it may just not be appropriate... > > > > To be honest, I don't like the "autodiscovery" mechanisms in Commons > > logging. I would be hard pressed to support another something like > > that for something less likely to be in widespread use. It is possible > > to just use the project that you need and stick with it for RegEx. > > > > There are very few projects out there that are meant to be used as a > > library that require a regex package (that I am aware of, but I don't > > get out much anymore). The chances of using two projects that require > > different RegEx solutions are so minute, that a commons version doesn't > > seem necessary. > > > > That's just my 2 cents. > > The odds of having two projects that require regexp packages that can also > tolerate having the definition of regular expression changed underneath them > approaches zero.
I agree whole heartedly with that statement. Jakarta Regexp does not handle nearly the same range of regular expressions which ORO handles (its use case is different). Trying to treat the two engines as the same is insanity. -- Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
