RE: [collections][pattern] Predicate, Transformer, Closure/Comman d, Factory

["Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Jack, Paul wrote:
> Well, in theory I'm not against [collections] depending 
> on [pattern].  But I think it'd have to happen after the
> 2.1 collections release -- unfortunate, as we'd then be
> adding an interface to collections we intend to deprecate
> later.
>
> But there are projects that are blocking on a new release
> of Collections, and since [pattern] is still in the sandbox,
> I wouldn't want those projects to wait until [pattern]
> goes through all the promotion steps.  I also wouldn't want
> to rush the promotion of [pattern], to make sure it has ample
> time to gestate.

I agree with Paul here...

> So my thinking is:
> 
> collections 2.1 -- no pattern dependency
> collections 2.x -- pattern dependency

collections 3.0 more like it.  Adding a dependency is a non-backwards 
compatible change (at least in my mind).  

michael


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

Re: [collections][pattern] Predicate, Transformer, Closure/Comman d, Factory

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

I am happy with these answers. Its what I expected :-)

What would help for a future integration would be the following changes to
[collections]:

- Rename SimpleObjectFactory to Factory
- Remove PredicateUtils (the part that returns predicates) - although useful
to collections, it is not core collections functionality, better to not have
it at all.

This will minimise problems for the future in my eyes.

Stephen

From: "Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Jack, Paul wrote:
> > Well, in theory I'm not against [collections] depending
> > on [pattern].  But I think it'd have to happen after the
> > 2.1 collections release -- unfortunate, as we'd then be
> > adding an interface to collections we intend to deprecate
> > later.
> >
> > But there are projects that are blocking on a new release
> > of Collections, and since [pattern] is still in the sandbox,
> > I wouldn't want those projects to wait until [pattern]
> > goes through all the promotion steps.  I also wouldn't want
> > to rush the promotion of [pattern], to make sure it has ample
> > time to gestate.
>
> I agree with Paul here...
>
> > So my thinking is:
> >
> > collections 2.1 -- no pattern dependency
> > collections 2.x -- pattern dependency
>
> collections 3.0 more like it.  Adding a dependency is a non-backwards
> compatible change (at least in my mind).
>
> michael
>
>
> --
> 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>