Please NO !!!
We're now finding it very difficult to use a lot of Jakarta projects,
because of dependency hell... it's becoming worse than Microsoft's famous
DLL hell problem. The more self-contained you can keep an API, the better
; yes, there are issues concerning code re-use, but at present,
As a user of jakarta projects I must say I agree with Chris on this one.
No offense, but in the way I see it HttpClient isn't big enough to be splitted and
to have one more dependency. I met the same trouble as Chris for commons-logging,
helpfully most jakarta projects are willing to update to
Chris Brown wrote:
We're now finding it very difficult to use a lot of Jakarta projects,
because of dependency hell... it's becoming worse than Microsoft's famous
DLL hell problem.
You can work around the DLL hell by using different class loaders for
different Jakarta tools.
Odi
BTW the DLL
Chris,
This problem is as old as software engineering itself. Code reuse
provides many benefits as well as many potential problems such as
versioning conflicts. In my opinion benefits still outweigh the
problems. Usually code reuse done right results in higher code quality,
provided that you get
It would seem that most if not all of the responses from the HttpClient
crew responded only to the HttpClient list, and not to commons dev. So
I'm not sure that all that might need/want to see the entirely negative
feedback have seen it. I don't subscribe to commons-dev, so if this
doesn't
Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [SURVEY] Commons-URI or not?
It would seem that most if not all of the responses from the HttpClient
crew responded only to the HttpClient list, and not to commons dev. So
I'm not sure that all that might need/want to see the entirely negative
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Sung-Gu wrote:
Hi all,
I suggest that jakarta-commons provides flexible URI issue implementations
as a package.
Various applications using URI concept comes in the internet world. and
they need common mechanisms and algorithms for URI.
For example, all internet
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Eric Johnson wrote:
[snip]
One of the negatives that others have mentioned on the HttpClient list
is the growing dependency problem within the Apache projects,
particularly with the myriad of dependencies on commons projects, and
among the commons projects themselves.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Commons HttpClient Project [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:37 AM
Subject: Re: [SURVEY] Commons-URI or not?
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Sung-Gu wrote
The Guidelines of the commons charter has some guidance here:
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/charter.html
1. The primary unit of reuse and release is the package.
2. The package library is not a framework but a collection of
components designed to be used independently.
3. Each
- Original Message -
From: Eric Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I too am against a separate URI commons package, at least for the moment.
[snip]
Anyway, to the extent that a separate URI package would make sense, if
we had a model such as the above, where most people used the one giant
- Original Message -
From: Shapira, Yoav [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 9:38 PM
Subject: RE: [SURVEY] Commons-URI or not?
Howdy,
I think a slightly more detailed proposal is needed: one that addresses
12 matches
Mail list logo
