On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 10:02, robert burrell donkin wrote: > On 25 Jul 2004, at 17:37, Craig McClanahan wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:07:53 +1200, Simon Kitching > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > >> Do you know of any containers that actually do use Digester and make > >> it > >> visible to containee code? > > > > Good question. > > definitely know? no > > i do seem to vaguely recall that some early versions of weblogic or > websphere do (i don't recall which it is or whether it's both). in > general, classloader issues used to be common with early containers and > less for more modern ones. i suspect that the only way we'd find out > whether this is a real issue would be to cut our first binary > incompatible digester release and then see how many users complained. i > don't know of any modern container that exposes digester through it's > root classloader. > > > But, regardless of the answer, wasn't the original question in this > > thread related to whether a new Digester release should specify a new > > BeansUtil release as a dependency (and thus allow it to not require > > commons-collections)? I still think that's a good idea, and have lost > > track of the current thinking on that topic. > > the question was: which way should be commons-collections dependency be > removed. i offered two options: > > 1 demand the latest beanutils version > 2 allow whichever beanutils version but include the collection packaged > classes as part of the digester release > > i originally thought that option 1 would be best but i've been > partially persuaded by stephen that 2 has some advantages (it has the > greatest range of compatibility).
For me, the most important decision is whether to roll back Craig McClanahan's changes to the ArrayStack class. Craig added a copy of ArrayStack as o.a.c.d.ArrayStack, to remove the dependency on commons-collections. But this creates a binary compatibility; because the field is protected, any existing code that subclasses Digester will break. If containers exist which expose the Digester to the containees, then we probably do need to roll back this change. But I'm not convinced this is the case. The other significant issue is whether to require the new BeanUtils release for Digester. I'm currently +1 on leaving Craig's changes in (-0 on removing them) +1 on requiring the latest BeanUtils. Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
