Out of the options I like Option #2 the best as well for the same reasons as Daryl and Felipe mentioned. I looked at the Collections source and they list the JDK dependency as JDK 1.2 or later.
If support of the Collections classes becomes an issue we can revisit this decision and always decide to add the jar dependency in the future.
Unless there are any objections, I'm going to go ahead with Option #2 and add the Collections LRUMap classes and dependencies into JSTL both 1.0 and 1.1.
Thanks,
Justyna
Felipe Leme wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 01:04, Kris Schneider wrote:
I think I jumped to the conclusion that Daryl was using JSTL 1.1 and hence made the JSP 2.0 -> J2EE 1.4 -> J2SE 1.4 connections.
And even JSP 2.0 doesn't require J2SE 1.4, when running inside a 'standalone' web-container (i.e, outside a J2EE 1.4 container).
required to support J2SE 1.3. I'm not sure I like taking on the dependency, but the Collections project already contains the classes
I thought about the Collections too, but then Standard would be compound of 3 jars, which would certainly cause a lot of trouble, as people is used to only copying jstl.jar and standard.jar. We have alternatives, too:
- merge commons-collection.jar into standard.jar - replicate the necessary classes into Standard src code
org.apache.commons.collections.LRUMap (v.2.1.1) and org.apache.commons.collections.map.LRUMap (v.3.1). I can't seem to put a finger on the J2SE requirements for Collections though...
Assuming these classes doesn't have deep dependencies on others, I would say the second option would be better (in the worst case, we would do some minor changes in the classes, like removing calls to Commons Logging, if any).
-- Felipe
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
