On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Ola Berg wrote: > Comments inline > > > > (1.5) interaction with other packages > > > > Functor's dependencies upon other components and external libraries should > > be minimal. > > ...or 'none'? or 'absolutely minimal'? I think that a separate Functor > package will fail should it be dependent on others.
Perhaps, but that's also covered by (indeed encouraged by) "miminal", don't you think? I think "this package cannot depedend on anything else" is a kind of a silly thing to put in the charter. It doesn't help define the scope in any meaningful way, and IMO may just contribute to the "monolithic component" design approach--functor needs feature "y" but can't depend upon another component, so I guess feature "y" must be added to functor. The expression "minimal" should encourage but not strictly require zero dependencies, since no one can argue that 0 is not minimal. If functor adds a dependency, then there should be a good reason for it, else we fail to meet this "minimal dependency" criterion. > > > > > The Functor component will be initially populated with source derived, > > copied, or moved from existing functor-related code available in > > Jakarta-Commons. Some non-normative examples include the Closure, > > Factory, Predicate, and Factory interfaces and some of the related > > Closure, Factory, Predicate, Factory... two kind of factories ? ;-) (I > guess you mean Transformer?) > Doh, good catch. Yes, the final draft should remove or replace one of those "Factory"s - R. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
