--- On Tue, 5/12/09, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote:
> From: Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de>
> Subject: Re: [all] Core library dependencies [was COLLECTIONS 3.3 release]
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 7:54 AM
> John Bollinger wrote at Dienstag, 12.
> Mai 2009 14:19:
>
> >
> >
> > Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >> The 'functors' in [collections] and [functor] are
> very different:
> >
> > Thanks for clearing that up. It obviously moots
> my argument as it applies
> > to Collections / Functor, though I think the
> distinction between private
> > dependencies and public ones is still generally
> relevant to Commons
> > projects.
>
> Thanks John for continuing the discussion. You did it
> exactly in the way I
> would have done, but as a non-native speaker, this gets
> hard sometimes to
> express the right thing. And I am also surprised of the big
> differences in
> implementation in this case.
>
As I see it, the functors in [collections] are a subset of those in [functor].
Presuming we allow both sets to stand, this still does not address the concern
voiced by James Carman: a [functor] UnaryFunctor--for any of which an
analogous interface WILL exist in [collections]--is not readily usable in
[collections]. I still don't see what the big deal is about optional
dependencies, so can we agree that [functor] could provide adapters to
[collections]'s functors when appropriate, creating an OPTIONAL dependency on
[collections] from [functor] (i.e. required only when the adapter code is used)?
-Matt
> - Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
