+1 on adding a new subproject. -0 on calling it "reflection".
Calling it "reflection" will be a bit misleading as it implies java.lang.reflect. But what has been discussed so far is more than simply providing a "thin" utils on the top of java.lang.reflect. I'd suggest something like "Meta-Prog", "ClassGenerator", or even "Metaclass" (?!). -- John At 03:33 pm 08-10-2002, you wrote: >Agree, [lang] must be minimalist as possible, >[lang] is not a very good prefix for this thread. >I am thinking about some new subproject it sandbox for reflection. > >BTW .NET's reflection has some API like BCEL to genetate code for CLR. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Juozas Baliuka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:15 PM > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > Subject: Re: [lang] Proposal for *NEXT* version > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > I do not think dependency on top level project is any problem > > > for commons > > > component, if public API does's not have classes or > > > interfaces from this > > > project. > > > > I disagree. Commons Lang should sit as close to the JDK as possible - >that's > > really what it's all about. If it starts depending on other packages, then > > it seems to me that it no longer meets its design goals. > > > > > Projects like BCEL , ORO, Lucene are very good and solve > > > common problems > > > too. > > > > Sure, but they do not - and should not - relate to Commons Lang. > > > > -- > > Martin Cooper -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
