On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 09:32 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
snip
So... we let Robert/Stephen/others finish up with reflect in lang while
copying across modifications that occur to those areas in beanutils...
unfortunately, the modifications and fixes can't be copied across.
the public
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 06:51 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from:Jeff Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Rodney Waldhoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Costin If duplication is a concern - then just use
Costin beanutils ( however duplication is explicitely
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 06:53 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
the guidelines have an inbuilt mechanism whereby components may - if they
wish - prevent a new existing commons committer joining. that is, they
can
veto the addition of the committers name to the
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 06:59 AM, Costin Manolache wrote:
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
It doesn't quite matter. There are people using it ( digester, other
projects), it was released - we have to live with it. We may learn a
lesson about APIs and use it next time, but as long as it
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
what we have is clear duplication. twice the support and twice the
maintenance.
Nobody asks you to support 2 versions. There is nothing wrong with
duplication ( at least in commons ). You can just maintain and
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 08:57 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
BTW. I agree that the [lang] charter would need to be reworked to
clarify the inclusion of 'reflection'.
This proposal is to create a package of Java utility classes for the
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 08:57 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
java.lang.reflect :) The proposal, nice and umbrella-like as it is, refers
to anything that provides Utils for the java.lang.reflect classes.
yep. the reflection classes are
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
I don't know.
this kind of stuff.
If the [reflect] package will have the same features and better API -
then it may be better to mark beanutils as stable/closed and
migrate modeler, digester, etc directly to
from:Jeff Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Rodney Waldhoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Costin If duplication is a concern - then just use
Costin beanutils ( however duplication is explicitely
Costin allowed in commons AFAIK).
Robert i've been convinced that beanutils is
Robert not
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 04:27 PM, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 08:39 PM, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
--- robert burrell donkin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
rodney hasn't been a regular contributor to
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Originally [reflect] was proposed for low-level reflection helpers.
However this got changed to [lang] because:
Not proposed, suggested, both in the [reflect] and [lang] case.
- the package would consist of only 4 classes
What's the threshold
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 04:27 PM, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
snip
And I'm convinced that lang isn't the right place either. Let's split the
difference and propose commons-reflect or commons-reflection or whatever,
and end this thread.
+1 but i don't have the energy to force this through.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from:Jeff Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Rodney Waldhoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Costin If duplication is a concern - then just use
Costin beanutils ( however duplication is explicitely
Costin allowed in commons AFAIK).
Robert i've been convinced that
robert burrell donkin wrote:
the guidelines have an inbuilt mechanism whereby components may - if they
wish - prevent a new existing commons committer joining. that is, they can
veto the addition of the committers name to the list of developers for the
component.
With a valid technical
--- robert burrell donkin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
the guidelines have an inbuilt mechanism whereby
components may - if they
wish - prevent a new existing commons committer
joining. that is, they can
veto the addition of the committers name to the list
of developers for the
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 07:41:08 -0800
From: Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [beanutils] moving reflection classes out of beanutils
robert burrell
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
It doesn't quite matter. There are people using it ( digester, other
projects), it was released - we have to live with it. We may learn a
lesson about APIs and use it next time, but as long as it does what it is
supposed to do and works - you can't remove it.
I
--- robert burrell donkin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 07:20 PM, Morgan
Delagrange wrote:
So it seems like the point is not
ConstructorUtils in
beanutils: a bad idea, but rather Reflection
classes
in beanutils: a bad idea. It's inappropriate to
-1
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 08:39 PM, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
--- robert burrell donkin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
rodney hasn't been a regular contributor to
beanutils either in terms of
code or on the mailing lists. if he couldn't even be
bothered to ask
before making himself a
19 matches
Mail list logo
