It sounds like I've jumped into a bit of a hornets nest. I was thinking this morning that such a move will run a high risk of creating a circular dependancy between [collections] and [lang][functor]. It seems likely that functors would want to use collection objects and vice-versa. If I'm right about this, then all this code really belongs under the same package.
-----Original Message----- From: Rodney Waldhoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:47 AM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: [general] lang scope? (was Re: [collections][lang] Predicate etc impls, was Re: commons-collections: New code contribution.) On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The plan is to make [collections] depend on [lang] and deprecate the > Predicate etc. interfaces in [collections]. At the risk of becoming increasingly unpopular with the lang folks, for reasons similiar to those I enumerated in [1] (and others), I'm uncomfortable with moving Predicate et al to lang. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing lang as meeting the "Each package must have a clearly defined purpose, scope, and API -- Do one thing well, and keep your contracts." criterion. Don't get me wrong, I think all of this is great stuff, but why does it all have to be in lang? If it doesn't meet the common reuse principle, it should be in a different component. The current (i.e., released) contents of o.a.c.lang, o.a.c.lang.builder, o.a.c.lang.enum and o.a.c.lang.exception seem reasonably coherent, but I don't think the either the functor or the reflection packages are a clean fit (with respect to the CRP, R/REP, etc.), either with each other or the other classes in lang. [1] <http://archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED] pache.org&msgNo=19869> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
