Sorry for the delay.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> (this somewhat follows on tangentally from the discussions on
> commons-collections-functor)
>
> i've been thinking over the last few weeks about the best approach for
> non-core code in existing components which is distributed as separate
> opti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> thanks: it's good to get different perspectives and we do appreciate
> folk who take the time to join the debate.
>
> i think that there are two different dimensions to this discussion. the
> first is flatter verses dee
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 09:19 -0600, Brian K. Wallace wrote:
> I've been watching the functor/logging threads so I believe I
> understand the reasoning behind your proposal, but I do not believe I
> quite agree with the implementation you suggest.
>
> There are two distinctly different groups
+1. Flat is good. Auxilliary is good as optional is increasingly used
with a legal policy slant (ie: some licences are okay for optional but
not required).
Hen
On 12/13/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (this somewhat follows on tangentally from the discussions on
> commons-c
robert burrell donkin wrote:
it's easier to automate a flat structure
+1
I also think more granularity in a flat structure will
1. Reduce the complexity of dependencies between components
2. Might foster reuse (less fears of unnecessary or cyclic
dependencies between components)
J.Pietschm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> (this somewhat follows on tangentally from the discussions on
> commons-collections-functor)
>
> i've been thinking over the last few weeks about the best approach for
> non-core code in existing components which is dist
(this somewhat follows on tangentally from the discussions on
commons-collections-functor)
i've been thinking over the last few weeks about the best approach for
non-core code in existing components which is distributed as separate
optional artifacts for reasons such as dependency management. i'd
