[collections][pattern] Predicate, Transformer, Closure/Command, Factory

[Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>]

As some of you are probably aware, I have started the [pattern] sandbox
project to gather together generic reusable interfaces. Perhaps not
surprisingly the first ones I chose came from [collections]. Thus [pattern]
has Predicate, Transformer, Command and Factory (plus Immutable and
Identifiable).

The first 4 from directly onto [collections] interfaces Predicate,
Transformer, Closure and SimpleObjectFactory. However, the versions in
[pattern] all have large Utils classes associated and a consistent exception
handling mechanism.

I would like to see [collections] depend on [patterns] for these four
interfaces. This could be achieved by deprecating the versions in
[collections] and making those extend the [pattern] equivalent. If this is
done before the next release, then SimpleObjectFactory can be deleted
entirely (as it was added after 2.0). (If the 2.1 release must go out I
suggest renaming it to Factory)

But of course this is controversial, [pattern] is new and still in the
sandbox. And [collections] currently has no dependencies, this would add
[pattern] and [lang].

On the plus side, [collections] would gain a much wider set of Utils for all
the interfaces than is currently available. And it is a more sensible
location for these interfaces, for example the new [introspect] will use the
[pattern] version when I get round to writing it ;-)

This thread is to gather opinion on whether [collections] are happy to use
[pattern] in principle -  soon, sometime or never ?

Stephen


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