The [lang] implementations do not depend on [collections], but they do depend on java.util.collections. This seems perfectly OK to me. Cyclic dependencies should be avoided.
Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
