Scott Sanders wrote:
>
> >> I believe that if you are depending
> >> upon a specific released version of a jar
> >
> >
> > ....Important bulletin: we interrup this quote to bring you the preferred
> > completion of this sentence:
> >
> > DON'T.
> >
> > If we want to build a composable system we can't affort to have brittle and
> > early-bound dependencies.
> >
> > The place to start is with Commons.
>
> Sam is just everywhere ;-)
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. We as java programmers
> should be programming to an interface contract, _NOT_ specific versions
> of jar files. jakarta-commons is the perfect place to start enforcing
> this in the Apache umbrella. Early-bound dependencies are bad, m'kay.
Yes - we as java programmers should *programming* to an interface
contract, and keeping them on the other side, but that's for elsewhere
:)
Just to contrain this to what I am really interested in (this thread is
getting away from the core problem I was trying to solve...)
Building is not programming. Building is building.
As programmers, we are also users - users of Ant, for example, when
making our build process. Yes, we then may decide there is something we
want to be changed or augmented, but that's a different story.
> We need to somehow get people started on the notion of using
> deprecation, and supporting the contracts that they have already provided.
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment for the functional aspects,
but :
All I wanted was to put an ant.jar in a top level directory so a user
can download a snapshot of jakarta-commons and build it w/o having to go
find and install ant...
That's all. Nothing more.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
