On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Gary Gregory wrote:
> We have over the last couple of weeks started "what's left for 2.0" message > threads a couple of times, do people here want a 2.0 (or a 2.0 beta first)? Yep. Time for another one soon. [email I mean]. I'm in favour of just going straight to a 2.0 rather than pushing a beta out. I'm not sure that reusable libraries as abstract as ours [and not a service like maven, tomcat etc] gain much from a beta release. Apologies for some of the questions coming up and for reopening of old emails, I've been gone for 3 weeks. > Should we consider: > > (1) IntHashMap as a non-public member of [lang] > > In for 2.0, or defer to discuss (2)? This was for Entities.java optimisation? Sounds good to go in. > (2) "all his other utility code" > > Does not affect [lang] per se but it is becoming clear that keeping [lang] > and [collections] not inter-dependent will introduce duplication of > functionality or odd placement of functionality (IntHashMap in lang, not > collection). Duplicating code is something I am really not fond of. I think this is a clear case of a good reason for allowing duplication. Optimisation involves lots of yucky things [and rarely anything nice]. Duplication is a yucky thing, but the optimisation is more important. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
