Knut Anders Hatlen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David, I think this is a very good proposal! Much better than the > class-version scheme proposed earlier in my opinion. Read my comments > to your questions below. > > "David W. Van Couvering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I thought Kathey/Dan's idea of generating copies of the common code >> into two separate directories was interesting and solved a lot of problems, >> and I thought it would be worthwhile to walk through this in a bit more >> detail. >> >> I took a look at all the relevant use cases I could think of and describe >> the steps involved and what the user experience will be like. Through >> this effort I did find a couple of possible issues that may make us want >> to think twice about this approach. Perhaps others can think of ways around >> these issues. I have labelled issues uncovered with the tag <ISSUE> in >> the text below, rather than try and summarize them here. >> >> >> CREATING A COMMON CLASS > > [snip] > >> <ISSUE> >> QUESTION: is there a need for mixed versions between the tools and >> engine code? If so we will need to generate a third package hierarchy >> org.apache.derby.tools.common.*. >> </ISSUE> > > Don't know, but when one first has a framework for common code this > should be relatively easy, don't you think? One more issue will arise > if the shared code is copied into three or more locations: What if > only two of the components use a file? Should that file only be copied > to those two components or to all the components? (Probably not a big > issue. I don't care if a jar gets a couple of KB bigger, but maybe > someone does.) > <OT> You realize, of course, that what you guys are proposing is a "home-grown" version of what REAL programming languages call *templates*, don't you...? :-D (Sorry, I could not help it) </OT>
-- dt
