>
> 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.
>
Ah ... that's the rationale that I hadn't caught in the earlier thread
... and it makes perfect sense. The problem was that the package name
was changed when I did the import, and that's the wrong thing to do.
Robert did it right when he copied o.a.c.c.ArrayStack into beanutils
... the package name is still "collections".
> 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.
If we pull this change back out, and go back to
org.apache.commons.collections.ArrayStack, then the new Digester
should work with either
(a) old BeanUtils and old Collections, or
(b) new BeanUtils
So, I'm currently:
+1 on pulling this change out
+1 on requiring new BeanUtils (and removing the
explicit Collections dependency).
If someone wants to test the old-beanutils+collections scenario, we
can document that combination as working as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon
Craig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
