--- "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm trying organize this thread a little bit more than was accomplished > in the discussion.
Thanks, Mark. Good job. > 1.) Argument exists concerning the dependency requirements of Commons > Math. To in fact be "modular" and "easily integrated" some discrepancy > arises concerning interdependency with other commons components. The > main question is; Are all these dependencies really required? > > a.) logging: It sounds like a good idea to make logging a > runtime/compile time dependency on only the test cases and not the main +1 > b.) Some discussion arises concerning some of the "higher level" > interfaces and their dependencies on commons such as Discovery. We > should review and grade if this Discovery pattern will really of "true" > value in the places we've applied it (As opposed to just providing > simple method of instantiation on these object directly...) +1 > c.) j2sdk1.3.1 vs. j2sdk1.4.1: we are a project in a group dedicated to > providing tools that can operate in Java Servlet/EBJ environments. Many > vendors are still operating on 1.3.1. We have concerns as to our stuff > working there. Thus we need to make sure we use only mechanisms > supported on 1.3.1 for the time being (and then operate on a longer > timescale to determine how facilitate usage of 1.4.1 in the future). I +1 > 2.) Server vs Application schools, I tend to think this is a "Red > Herring", this arises primarily by some great comments Eric made I also think that if we do a good job addressing points 1a and 1b above, the issue of requiring or having dependencies on too many other jars will be ameliorated by simply having reduced the number upon which math depends. Al __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
