On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 08:57 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > > > java.lang.reflect :) The proposal, nice and umbrella-like as it is, refers > > to anything that provides Utils for the java.lang.reflect classes. > > yep. the reflection classes are definitely in-scope. > > i think that people would be less worried about lang expanding into a > grand, uber-utility framework if the second part of the charter could be > tightened up a little. > > "or are considered to be so standard as to justify existence in java.lang. > " > > can be interpreted fairly broadly. I'm +1 to remove this. It's aimed to be a loophole, but now I've got a bit more of an understanding of the ASF Way, I see that the way is to define things tightly then argue through the barriers, rather than leave little backdoor legalisms. I'll suggest this in another thread to be removed. > AFAIK no one's objected to the scope of the released version. > > of the newer packages, reflect is clearly in-scope but there is some > debate about whether it's the best place for those classes. > > whether functor is in scope is debatable. no one objected at the time but > it would be possible to create a reasoned argument that they are 'standard' > but not 'so standard' as to justify inclusion. Functor has always been a big debate. That they are highly useful is not somethign I can argue with [having just spent some time on vacation making the IO FileFilter implement Predicate]. They are also not [Patterns], a name that was I think my misfortune to suggest without a real understanding. It's also blatantly obvious that they are misplaced in Collections. Probably the bigger question is how to get them out of collections and not why they're currently in the cvs tree under lang :) Hen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
