Commons architecture Was: [Lang] Add Factory and Identifier to Lang

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

> <snip> ... general policy is to spread
> functionality very thinly across many sandbox projects. I have expressed my
> view in another thread that this way leads to madness - and it certainly
> does not lead to common code. This is a real issue for me, such that I'm
> questioning the commitment of commons to generic reusable code at the lowest
> level.

Seems like a good issue to raise. An attempt to synopsis the recent
changes to Commons 'core' projects:

They all lived in Util. It was messy and lackaged structure.
org.apache.commons.util housed most of them.

They were pulled out into their own package structures,
org.apache.commons.io, etc.

They were put in their own projects to allow for easier management,
IO, Net, Lang, etc.

Util was left as a small breeding ground of things judged less important.

A build to a common jar was decided against.
----

I've probably not got it quite right, but hopefully that's fairly
descriptive.

Now, I don't think anyone is arguing with the decision to move things to
different Java package names, ie) org.apache.commons.lang etc. I don't
think there are any problems with the code in Util having been left
behind. So that leaves two left:

1) Should the 'core' packages belong in one sub-project or multiple
sub-projects,

and as an automatic follow on from this in my view:

2) Should a single core sub-project build to one jar.

-----

Stephen, could you verify if my summary is correct, correct it if needed
and provide your reasons for why the current multiple sub-projects leads
to madness and why a single core project would be sane?

[mainly as an effort to make it easy for other Commons devs to join the
context of the discussion]

Hen


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>