Re: [beanutils] PROPOSAL: eliminate core dependency on collections

[Craig McClanahan]

robert burrell donkin wrote:

On 6 May 2004, at 22:38, Craig McClanahan wrote:

robert burrell donkin wrote:

On 6 May 2004, at 21:28, Craig McClanahan wrote:

robert burrell donkin wrote:
<snip>

2 replace the references to FastHashMap with a private static 
implementation. consider whether to replace this altogether.


+1.  Regarding replacement, I'm fine with any approach that lets us 
read from the collection without locking (which is the 99.9% use 
case for where the Fast* stuff is used in both BeanUtils and in 
Struts).  In practice, nobody has reported a reproducible bug 
against the code in these classes, but I can certainly appreciate 
how difficult it would be to accomplish this.


hmmm...

if FastHashMap is used in struts as well as beanutils then maybe we 
should retain this class in the source (as well as the other two)...


It's used in Struts for purposes similar to where it's used in 
beanutils ... for mostly-read-only access to configuration collections.

That's not really something that should drive a [beanutils] decision, 
though ... and this is all a temporary measure until we can deprecate 
the bad public API and fix it.  I'm still fine with copying them.


what's driving me is wanting to clean up the dependency issues for 
downstream beanutils customers (such as struts). IMHO that struts 
needs FastHashMap is a reasonable litmus test.
But having [beanutils] break its link will be a positive motivation for 
Struts to consider undoing this as well.  In the past it was partly a 
laziness issue, since we knew we were inheriting collections anyway.

it makes me inclined to think that a copied version (packaged under 
org.apache.commons.collections) should be included as part of the 
public API. (rather than a private implementation.)

I've been assuming that all along since it's part of the public api of 
beanutils.


3 factor out a new bean-collections jar under 
extras/bean-collections containing the (cool) implementations of 
collections stuffs using beanutils bean-magic.

I'm not sure I'm parsing this sentence correctly.  Does that mean 
we just put the ArrayStack and Buffer and Fast* classes being 
grabbed here, instead of in src/java?  If so, +1.  Otherwise, could 
you please explain further?

<snip>

have i explained this better now?

That makes much more sense ... thanks.  I'm +1 on this idea.


great

or would it be easier for me to create a branch and commit stuff 
onto that so that people can take a look...

HEAD branch is fine with me.


HEAD it is then

Cool.

- robert

Craig

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]