You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by "Jack, Paul" <pj...@sfaf.org> on 2002/08/14 22:54:56 UTC
[Collections] subpackage for iterators?
There's like four new iterators that have been added since 2.0.
I'm wondering if it makes since to have an iterators subpackage.
Problem is, the six or seven previous iterators would still be
in the top-level package. We'd either have to deprecate them
(ugly) or leave them there (confusing). Still, since new iterators
seem to commonly pop up, it might make sense to factor them into
their own package.
Thoughts?
-Paul
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Collections] subpackage for iterators?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> From: "Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>
> > Jack, Paul wrote:
> > > Thoughts?
>
> I favour a subpackage iff we agree to remove the deprecated versions in the
> main package at some point, preferably 3.0.
+1 from me.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Collections] subpackage for iterators?
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
From: "Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>
> Jack, Paul wrote:
> > There's like four new iterators that have been added since 2.0.
> > I'm wondering if it makes since to have an iterators subpackage.
> > Problem is, the six or seven previous iterators would still be
> > in the top-level package. We'd either have to deprecate them
> > (ugly) or leave them there (confusing). Still, since new iterators
> > seem to commonly pop up, it might make sense to factor them into
> > their own package.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I'm pretty ambivalent. You're right about things though. Moving them
> to a separate package is either ugly or confusing. But at least the
> ugly is potentially a short-term ugly.
I favour a subpackage iff we agree to remove the deprecated versions in the
main package at some point, preferably 3.0.
Stephen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Collections] subpackage for iterators?
Posted by "Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>.
Jack, Paul wrote:
> There's like four new iterators that have been added since 2.0.
> I'm wondering if it makes since to have an iterators subpackage.
> Problem is, the six or seven previous iterators would still be
> in the top-level package. We'd either have to deprecate them
> (ugly) or leave them there (confusing). Still, since new iterators
> seem to commonly pop up, it might make sense to factor them into
> their own package.
>
> Thoughts?
I'm pretty ambivalent. You're right about things though. Moving them
to a separate package is either ugly or confusing. But at least the
ugly is potentially a short-term ugly.
michael
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>