You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by ri...@mediagenix.com on 2002/07/05 08:45:44 UTC
[lang] Reflection or not?
Hello,
One of the things that need further discussion before a 1.0 release of
Commons-Lang is the fact whether we are going to add some reflection
functionality or not. With this message, I would like to get the ball
rolling.
Here are my questions and opinions.
Q: Do you consider commons-lang only an extension to java.lang or to
java.lang *and* it's subpackages?
A: I would consider it an extension to java.lang *and* it's subpackages.
Q: Can we add reflection functionality without overlapping with
Commons-BeanUtils?
A: This depends on what functionality people have in mind.
Q: Can we add reflection possibility without introducing new dependencies?
A: Commons-lang should only have the JDK libraries as its dependency for
users of commons-lang. JUnit required for testing purposes.
Ringo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [lang] Reflection or not?
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
Just to clarify, my impression is that the BeanUtils guys will _probably_
support reflect in Lang, but _only_ once Lang is in commons proper. Hence
the two part promotion.
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: [lang] Reflection or not?
>
> The shorter we spend in Commons proper before a release, the worse the
> view will be I believe. I also want us to be able to say "okay, adding in
> system or reflect or xxx is causing us too much pain, let's dump it",
> without it having affected the current functionalities too much, or the
> drive to a release.
>
> Mainly I've been seeing it as 'cleaning', 'vote commons proper', 'new
> code', 'vote release'. As well as system and reflect we also have some
> other code from Avalon to consider.
>
> Another reason is cvs. Adding lots of code only to confuse/lose its audit
> trail seems a bit of a pain. It'd be nice to bring over a good [as in lots
> of tests and docs] then proceed as normal.
>
> The only significant issue would appear to be the Classes class. It's
> tempting to make this package-private so that it's not on an initial API.
>
> Let me know if I'm blatantly wrong though,
>
> Hen
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, [iso-8859-1] Ringo De Smet wrote:
>
> > Henri,
> >
> > --- Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 from me. I think we can consider [core-reflect] to be an aimed for
> > > solution to go into Lang once it is in Commons proper and hopefully
> > > before a 1.0 release.
> >
> > You want the promotion to commons proper first and then discuss about
> > adding the reflect before a 1.0 release? Why the promotion first then?
> > Can't we get the sources in place first in the sandbox and then promote
> > the whole thing to proper, directly followed by a 1.0 release?
> > I must be missing something... :-/
> >
> > Ringo
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [lang] Reflection or not?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
The shorter we spend in Commons proper before a release, the worse the
view will be I believe. I also want us to be able to say "okay, adding in
system or reflect or xxx is causing us too much pain, let's dump it",
without it having affected the current functionalities too much, or the
drive to a release.
Mainly I've been seeing it as 'cleaning', 'vote commons proper', 'new
code', 'vote release'. As well as system and reflect we also have some
other code from Avalon to consider.
Another reason is cvs. Adding lots of code only to confuse/lose its audit
trail seems a bit of a pain. It'd be nice to bring over a good [as in lots
of tests and docs] then proceed as normal.
The only significant issue would appear to be the Classes class. It's
tempting to make this package-private so that it's not on an initial API.
Let me know if I'm blatantly wrong though,
Hen
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, [iso-8859-1] Ringo De Smet wrote:
> Henri,
>
> --- Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 from me. I think we can consider [core-reflect] to be an aimed for
> > solution to go into Lang once it is in Commons proper and hopefully
> > before a 1.0 release.
>
> You want the promotion to commons proper first and then discuss about
> adding the reflect before a 1.0 release? Why the promotion first then?
> Can't we get the sources in place first in the sandbox and then promote
> the whole thing to proper, directly followed by a 1.0 release?
> I must be missing something... :-/
>
> Ringo
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [lang] Reflection or not?
Posted by Ringo De Smet <ri...@yahoo.co.uk>.
Henri,
--- Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
>
> +1 from me. I think we can consider [core-reflect] to be an aimed for
> solution to go into Lang once it is in Commons proper and hopefully
> before a 1.0 release.
You want the promotion to commons proper first and then discuss about
adding the reflect before a 1.0 release? Why the promotion first then?
Can't we get the sources in place first in the sandbox and then promote
the whole thing to proper, directly followed by a 1.0 release?
I must be missing something... :-/
Ringo
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [lang] Reflection or not?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> ... and Lang's Classes. It should not contain fancy functionality, data
> structures, search mechanisms etc. Again though, this discussion should be
> deferred until lang is promoted to commons proper.
> (I would still desire the
> code to then go in before 1.0, but I can be persuaded otherwise if
> necessary)
+1 from me. I think we can consider [core-reflect] to be an aimed for
solution to go into Lang once it is in Commons proper and hopefully before
a 1.0 release.
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [lang] Reflection or not?
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 ringo.desmet@mediagenix.com wrote:
>
> > Here are my questions and opinions.
> >
> > Q: Do you consider commons-lang only an extension to java.lang or to
> > java.lang *and* it's subpackages?
> > A: I would consider it an extension to java.lang *and* it's subpackages.
>
> Agreed. Lang maps to lang.*, lang's subpackages unless it's felt that Sun
> made a major mistake in a lang class or subpackage, to primitive types and
> possibly to arrays. Arrays encroaches on collections a little due to
> java.util.Arrays.
I would agree with lang.reflect for Class, Method, Constructor, Field
utility classes
> > Q: Can we add reflection functionality without overlapping with
> > Commons-BeanUtils?
> > A: This depends on what functionality people have in mind.
>
> org.apache.commons.lang.reflect.* would have to be limited to helper
> functionality for java.lang.reflect.*. The second we start to have some
> kind of new layer being created above java.lang.reflect, then I think we
> should start to question whether the code should be in Lang.
See below
> > Q: Can we add reflection possibility without introducing new
dependencies?
> > A: Commons-lang should only have the JDK libraries as its dependency for
> > users of commons-lang. JUnit required for testing purposes.
>
> There were a lot of threads bouncing around about '[reflect]'. Many were
> on a project that would not be suitable for Lang because it was too high
> level. Stephen suggested the movement of some core functionality from
> BeanUtils into Lang. I need to review the threads more, but I believe that
> is the main focus on commons.lang.reflect.
I still want to get a reflect area going, however that is no longer the
correct name for the new sandbox project. Nor is it my top priority. I do
want to get the 'real' reflect part into lang however. This should contain
utility methods similar to those on the current BeanUtils' MethodUtils class
and Lang's Classes. It should not contain fancy functionality, data
structures, search mechanisms etc. Again though, this discussion should be
deferred until lang is promoted to commons proper. (I would still desire the
code to then go in before 1.0, but I can be persuaded otherwise if
necessary)
Stephen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [lang] StackIntrospector
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
I would consider StackIntrospector to be a candidate for lang.system if
we decide to create such a subpackage within lang. Since discussion of
system is deferred at present, so is StackIntrospector.
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 8:42 AM
Subject: [lang] StackIntrospector
> In addition to StringUtil in Avalon, there is:
>
>
jakarta-avalon-excalibur/util/src/java/org/apache/excalibur/util/StackIntros
pector.java
>
> Mentioning it in case anyone thinks it is a candidate for Lang or
> lang.reflect. I'm not bothered, just stirring the fire :)
>
> Chances are it is best placed in Commons.Util.
>
> Hen
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [betwixt] nested elements in .betwixt file
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
It shouldn't and also it didn't make any difference when creating a
.betwixt file for one of my "nested beans". It still gives the same,
strange results
What I actually really want to know is what it should be able to do (or
what was intended), so we can make it work accordingly...
In my opinion there should be 1 .betwixt file that can also handle the
child beans or if you want add .betwixt files for the child beans with
the same (working) result
Mvgr,
Martin
On Sat, 2002-07-06 at 09:26, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> hi james
>
> (i want to make sure that i've got it clear since i've been a bit confused
> by the documentation. i'll patch them once i've made sure i've understood
> it correctly.)
>
> a betwixt file specifies a mapping *only* for a particular bean. it does
> not specify mappings for child beans. the nesting facility only applies to
> 'spacer' elements and attributes rather than elements mapped to properties.
>
> therefore you cannot use nested mapped elements to customize the xml
> generated for child beans.
>
> have i got this right now?
>
> - robert
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
[betwixt] nested elements in .betwixt file
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@mac.com>.
hi james
(i want to make sure that i've got it clear since i've been a bit confused
by the documentation. i'll patch them once i've made sure i've understood
it correctly.)
a betwixt file specifies a mapping *only* for a particular bean. it does
not specify mappings for child beans. the nesting facility only applies to
'spacer' elements and attributes rather than elements mapped to properties.
therefore you cannot use nested mapped elements to customize the xml
generated for child beans.
have i got this right now?
- robert
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
[lang] StackIntrospector
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
In addition to StringUtil in Avalon, there is:
jakarta-avalon-excalibur/util/src/java/org/apache/excalibur/util/StackIntrospector.java
Mentioning it in case anyone thinks it is a candidate for Lang or
lang.reflect. I'm not bothered, just stirring the fire :)
Chances are it is best placed in Commons.Util.
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [lang] Reflection or not?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 ringo.desmet@mediagenix.com wrote:
> Here are my questions and opinions.
>
> Q: Do you consider commons-lang only an extension to java.lang or to
> java.lang *and* it's subpackages?
> A: I would consider it an extension to java.lang *and* it's subpackages.
Agreed. Lang maps to lang.*, lang's subpackages unless it's felt that Sun
made a major mistake in a lang class or subpackage, to primitive types and
possibly to arrays. Arrays encroaches on collections a little due to
java.util.Arrays.
>
> Q: Can we add reflection functionality without overlapping with
> Commons-BeanUtils?
> A: This depends on what functionality people have in mind.
org.apache.commons.lang.reflect.* would have to be limited to helper
functionality for java.lang.reflect.*. The second we start to have some
kind of new layer being created above java.lang.reflect, then I think we
should start to question whether the code should be in Lang.
>
> Q: Can we add reflection possibility without introducing new dependencies?
> A: Commons-lang should only have the JDK libraries as its dependency for
> users of commons-lang. JUnit required for testing purposes.
There were a lot of threads bouncing around about '[reflect]'. Many were
on a project that would not be suitable for Lang because it was too high
level. Stephen suggested the movement of some core functionality from
BeanUtils into Lang. I need to review the threads more, but I believe that
is the main focus on commons.lang.reflect.
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [lang] Reflection or not?
Posted by Rand McNeely <ra...@yahoo.com>.
Response in line
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ringo.desmet@mediagenix.com [mailto:ringo.desmet@mediagenix.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 1:46 AM
> To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: [lang] Reflection or not?
>
> Hello,
>
> One of the things that need further discussion before a 1.0 release of
> Commons-Lang is the fact whether we are going to add some reflection
> functionality or not. With this message, I would like to get the ball
> rolling.
>
> Here are my questions and opinions.
>
> Q: Do you consider commons-lang only an extension to java.lang or to
> java.lang *and* it's subpackages?
> A: I would consider it an extension to java.lang *and* it's
subpackages.
I agree, reflection should be part of the commons-lang project but I
feel it should be in a ...lang.reflect package. I think that Sun should
have placed Class in reflect but since they didn't, we should adhere to
their structures (Classes should remain in ...lang and Methods and other
future reflection classes should go in ...lang.reflect).
> Q: Can we add reflection functionality without overlapping with
> Commons-BeanUtils?
> A: This depends on what functionality people have in mind.
>
It seems so. There are some more general reflection methods that would
be nice to have (such as getConstructor(String clazz,Class[] args) or
createInstance(String clazz,Object[] args) that aren't really applicable
to beans. However, BeanUtils does seem to be using many methods that
would be more suitable in a reflect package. Is it possible to refactor
them into lang and modify BeanUtils to use the ...lang.reflect classes?
> Q: Can we add reflection possibility without introducing new
dependencies?
> A: Commons-lang should only have the JDK libraries as its dependency
for
> users of commons-lang. JUnit required for testing purposes.
Lang sounds like it ought to be the base package for other commons
projects (it's a shame it wasn't written first). Introducing
dependencies on other projects may cause a mess down the line as they
may later choose to modify pieces of their code to use lang once it is
released (notice that java.lang.* and java.lang.reflect use arrays and
not Lists or Enumerations).
> Ringo
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-
> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-
> help@jakarta.apache.org>
Rand
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [lang] Reflection or not?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
That's cool. The inclusion of the reflection stuff has been pegged as an
after migration event.
Ditto the Enum/hashcode/char[]/stringbuffer/Avalon.String functionalities.
S'all about cleaning atm :)
Hen
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> the issue of the code in beanutils can't be settled until lang has been
> approved (or rejected) for promotion. there are bugs which need fixing and
> i don't want to branch the code.
>
> - robert
>
>
> On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 05:58 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> >
> > It seems like a good idea to get the existing code in order before voting
> > on promoting, but not needing new features added. Some new features are
> > going in as and when people offer patches, but the main aim is to just
> > tidy up a bit, get rid of things that aren't wanted and then propose a
> > vote.
> >
> > Currently this is down to some more unit testing of Strings and a decision
> > as to whether Constant goes. Chances are Constant will quietly vanish in
> > the migration.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >
> >> can we have this discussion once lang as been proposed (and hopefully
> >> accepted) as a common component?
> >>
> >> is there any reason why a vote on promoting lang shouldn't be called
> >> straight away?
> >>
> >> - robert
> >>
> >> On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 07:45 AM, ringo.desmet@mediagenix.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> One of the things that need further discussion before a 1.0 release of
> >>> Commons-Lang is the fact whether we are going to add some reflection
> >>> functionality or not. With this message, I would like to get the ball
> >>> rolling.
> >>>
> >>> Here are my questions and opinions.
> >>>
> >>> Q: Do you consider commons-lang only an extension to java.lang or to
> >>> java.lang *and* it's subpackages?
> >>> A: I would consider it an extension to java.lang *and* it's subpackages.
> >>>
> >>> Q: Can we add reflection functionality without overlapping with
> >>> Commons-BeanUtils?
> >>> A: This depends on what functionality people have in mind.
> >>>
> >>> Q: Can we add reflection possibility without introducing new
> >>> dependencies?
> >>> A: Commons-lang should only have the JDK libraries as its dependency for
> >>> users of commons-lang. JUnit required for testing purposes.
> >>>
> >>> Ringo
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-
> >>> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
> >>> org>
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-
> >>> help@jakarta.apache.
> >>> org>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
> >> org>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.
> >> org>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
> > org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.
> > org>
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [lang] Reflection or not?
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@mac.com>.
the issue of the code in beanutils can't be settled until lang has been
approved (or rejected) for promotion. there are bugs which need fixing and
i don't want to branch the code.
- robert
On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 05:58 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> It seems like a good idea to get the existing code in order before voting
> on promoting, but not needing new features added. Some new features are
> going in as and when people offer patches, but the main aim is to just
> tidy up a bit, get rid of things that aren't wanted and then propose a
> vote.
>
> Currently this is down to some more unit testing of Strings and a decision
> as to whether Constant goes. Chances are Constant will quietly vanish in
> the migration.
>
> Hen
>
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
>> can we have this discussion once lang as been proposed (and hopefully
>> accepted) as a common component?
>>
>> is there any reason why a vote on promoting lang shouldn't be called
>> straight away?
>>
>> - robert
>>
>> On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 07:45 AM, ringo.desmet@mediagenix.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> One of the things that need further discussion before a 1.0 release of
>>> Commons-Lang is the fact whether we are going to add some reflection
>>> functionality or not. With this message, I would like to get the ball
>>> rolling.
>>>
>>> Here are my questions and opinions.
>>>
>>> Q: Do you consider commons-lang only an extension to java.lang or to
>>> java.lang *and* it's subpackages?
>>> A: I would consider it an extension to java.lang *and* it's subpackages.
>>>
>>> Q: Can we add reflection functionality without overlapping with
>>> Commons-BeanUtils?
>>> A: This depends on what functionality people have in mind.
>>>
>>> Q: Can we add reflection possibility without introducing new
>>> dependencies?
>>> A: Commons-lang should only have the JDK libraries as its dependency for
>>> users of commons-lang. JUnit required for testing purposes.
>>>
>>> Ringo
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-
>>> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
>>> org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-
>>> help@jakarta.apache.
>>> org>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
>> org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.
>> org>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
> org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.
> org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [lang] Reflection or not?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
It seems like a good idea to get the existing code in order before voting
on promoting, but not needing new features added. Some new features are
going in as and when people offer patches, but the main aim is to just
tidy up a bit, get rid of things that aren't wanted and then propose a
vote.
Currently this is down to some more unit testing of Strings and a decision
as to whether Constant goes. Chances are Constant will quietly vanish in
the migration.
Hen
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> can we have this discussion once lang as been proposed (and hopefully
> accepted) as a common component?
>
> is there any reason why a vote on promoting lang shouldn't be called
> straight away?
>
> - robert
>
> On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 07:45 AM, ringo.desmet@mediagenix.com wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > One of the things that need further discussion before a 1.0 release of
> > Commons-Lang is the fact whether we are going to add some reflection
> > functionality or not. With this message, I would like to get the ball
> > rolling.
> >
> > Here are my questions and opinions.
> >
> > Q: Do you consider commons-lang only an extension to java.lang or to
> > java.lang *and* it's subpackages?
> > A: I would consider it an extension to java.lang *and* it's subpackages.
> >
> > Q: Can we add reflection functionality without overlapping with
> > Commons-BeanUtils?
> > A: This depends on what functionality people have in mind.
> >
> > Q: Can we add reflection possibility without introducing new dependencies?
> > A: Commons-lang should only have the JDK libraries as its dependency for
> > users of commons-lang. JUnit required for testing purposes.
> >
> > Ringo
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
> > org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.
> > org>
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [lang] Reflection or not?
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@mac.com>.
can we have this discussion once lang as been proposed (and hopefully
accepted) as a common component?
is there any reason why a vote on promoting lang shouldn't be called
straight away?
- robert
On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 07:45 AM, ringo.desmet@mediagenix.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> One of the things that need further discussion before a 1.0 release of
> Commons-Lang is the fact whether we are going to add some reflection
> functionality or not. With this message, I would like to get the ball
> rolling.
>
> Here are my questions and opinions.
>
> Q: Do you consider commons-lang only an extension to java.lang or to
> java.lang *and* it's subpackages?
> A: I would consider it an extension to java.lang *and* it's subpackages.
>
> Q: Can we add reflection functionality without overlapping with
> Commons-BeanUtils?
> A: This depends on what functionality people have in mind.
>
> Q: Can we add reflection possibility without introducing new dependencies?
> A: Commons-lang should only have the JDK libraries as its dependency for
> users of commons-lang. JUnit required for testing purposes.
>
> Ringo
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
> org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.
> org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>