Yes, it would be the implementations (in [lang][functor] that would want to use [collections]. And the implementation classes and interfaces in [collections] would, by definition depend on [lang][functor].
-----Original Message----- From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:50 AM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [general] lang scope? On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 06:35 PM, Tom Drake wrote: > It sounds like I've jumped into a bit of a hornets nest. this is actually pretty tame :) but it's too late to jump of the frying pan... > I was thinking this morning that such a move will run a high risk of > creating a circular dependancy between [collections] and [lang][functor]. > It > seems likely that functors would want to use collection objects and > vice-versa. If I'm right about this, then all this code really belongs > under > the same package. (i don't have a deep understanding of the issues so this might be completely left field.) i suppose that it's the implementations rather than the interfaces that will depend on collection objects. this might point towards having a separate (possibly revamped) pattern component. the interfaces might live in lang and the implementations in pattern. pattern could depend on collection whereas collection could depend on lang. - robert -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
