Matt Benson wrote at Dienstag, 12. Mai 2009 15:11: > > > > --- 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)?
Yes, an optional dep might do. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
