Re: [lang] What's left for 2.0 (WAS: [collections] Primitive collecti ons (was Entities and LGPL))

[Neil O'Toole <ne...@users.sourceforge.net>]

> Would it make sense to layer [collections] on top of [lang], in the
> same
> manner that Xalan is layered on and includes Xerces in it's
> distribution?
> The most basic of collection-like things could be in [lang] for
> example; I
> am not fond of this either but what are our options? Don't throw ripe
> fruit
> at me if you consider this heresy s.v.p. ;-)

More heresy here - ultimately I think it will be futile or very awkward
to maintain independence. Being that [lang] is supposed to be a core
set of utilities, it is reasonable that other libraries depend upon it.
What happens if two commons subprojects both need a particular
function? I believe there are only three possibilities:

1. replicate the code in both - widely held to be a bad idea.
2. put the code in one of the libraries, and reference that library
from the other. This can obviously lead to libraries having multiple
dependencies on each other, so this isn't a viable proposition.
3. put the code in a common 'core' library, i.e. [lang], that both
libraries can reference.

I think that sooner or later we're going to have to bite the bullet on
this one, and that [collections] will end up with dependencies on
[lang]. No rotten fruit here either, please!

- Neil

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org