--- Thomas Dudziak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/29/05, Stephen Colebourne > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > TransformerUtils -> [collection-functors] > > PredicateUtils -> [collection-functors] > > ClosureUtils -> [collection-functors] > > FactoryUtils -> [collection-functors] > > > > Transformer -> [collections] > > Predicate -> [collections] > > Closure -> [collections] > > Factory -> [collections] > > If the functors (and you should choose a new name, > its much too close > to commons-functor) The new component is [collection-functors], so there should be no confusion.
> If the functors are so closely tied to > commons-collections, why > don't you distribute the commons-collections lib in > two variants ? One > could contain only the core functionality, say > commons-collections-core.jar, and the other the > complete collections > lib, say commons-collections-full.jar. > Do you expect the new component to have a higher > release cycle than > commons-collections itself ? If not, than IMHO that > would not justify > a new commons component. I do expect different release cycles going forward. There is only a small tie between the two bits of code (4 interfaces). What we are arguing is that delivering two jars within one project actually *hides* what is really going on, which is two separately released codebases. This clarifies the end result by making truly independent projects. Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
