Charles Hudak wrote:
Mark wrote:
Eric Pugh wrote: This backlash against multiple commons jars is happening in a lot of
places.
However, I think it is a bit shortsighted. If you are in a non server environment, I understand the problem, but in a server environment with
lots
of harddrive space, I don't. Additionally, since in a server app you are likely to need all thoses dependencies any way. I think almost every app
I
work on has commons-lang, commons-loggin, and commons-collections
included.
And then depending on what else, commons-discovery and commons-beanutils show up all the time!
I think that this comment is a little shortsighted.
Maybe we all need new glasses ;-)
We are still using and constantly have problems with the multitude of third party libraries that we are using. WL 5.1 does not seem to find libraries in the WEB-INF/lib directory, as it should, so these have to be set using the classpath. Unfortunately, on Windows NT, the commandline has a size limitation. Every so often, after adding another library, we are unable to start the server due to a "the command is too long" error. This is a PITA and we have been working around it for several years.
Having to add 3 or 4 extra commons jars just because I want to use ONE of the libraries is lame. I'm all for code reuse but it seems as if the commons developers have created alot of unnecessary dependancies between the projects (maybe as a show of solidarity, who knows). This also creates versioning problems. If I want to update one library, I may have to update several of it's dependant libraries, ad nauseum. I already deal with this hassle with the rapidly changing XML libraries and the fact that some idiot library developers insist on including dated versions of the dom and sax api's in their jars. </rant>
People need to realize that there are lots of legacy users out there who aren't limited by only 'harddrive space'.
Hmm, not to be critical, but 5.1 is almost at the end of its product lifecycle. Weblogic has had several releases since 5.1 that solve many of these issues do they not? I say this mostly to "identify" that there is a limitation as to how far back in terms of versioning we, as a "new tool", should consider supporting. I would have attempted to deal with an issue like this with BEA, not neccessarily with the java community at large because they create too many jars (I'm saying this lightly).
Not to nip a subject in the butt. But this has moved way off the issue associated with how dependent the different commons projects (and specifically related to math dependencies). I hope we can draw it back into this subject.
-Mark
-- Mark Diggory Software Developer Harvard MIT Data Center http://osprey.hmdc.harvard.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
