I'm with Hen on this one. Core is coming, but not quite yet. [util] is a diverse set
of useful classes that don't quite make a releasable jar. Maybe they will one day,
maybe it will all be folded into [lang]. Its still not the right time to say IMHO.
Actually, the real task is to examine each of
You're absolutely right.
--- Ola Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A commons core component has been discussed before. Seems like lang, util,
>collection, io and
> some more are justified there, since they cover broad aspects of java programming.
>This is
> something that we (according to the di
It is dependant on lang :)
SNAPSHOT version at the moment.
Hen
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> I would like to propose that [util] becomes dependent on [lang].
>
> - [util] is conceptually at a higher level.
> - Its not in wide use, so adding a dependency shouldn't affect too
I would like to propose that [util] becomes dependent on [lang].
- [util] is conceptually at a higher level.
- Its not in wide use, so adding a dependency shouldn't affect too many
people.
- This would enable the identifier generating code currently in [pattern] to
move to [util] (a much better lo
