On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 03:25 PM, Rodney Waldhoff wrote: <snip>
no, that thread wasn't binding. that's one reason why i wanted to try to engage you in debate rather than just -1'ing the commit straight away :)Looking through the archives, I now see the thread named "[beanutils][lang][PROPOSAL] deprecated beanutils version of MethodUtils" [1] which apparently should have been flagged "[VOTE]", if that was intended to be a binding vote.
though i agree about your point in general, the reflection code fits perfectly into lang's spec. they are utility classes for package java.lang.I'd be OK with leaving beanutils as the repository for reflection oriented stuff. In light of this thread, I think I'd prefer to create true reflection oriented commons component. I'm strongly opposed to moving a bunch of stuff into lang because it seems somehow central or widely applicable. I'd rather see a bunch of focused modules with well defined scope (however tiny) than a grand utilties framework, and my reading of the commons charter says it agrees with me.
reflect.
AFAIK class and reflect(ion?) were intended to be introspection-alternatives. they need to rely on solid, low level reflection utilities.
- robert
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
