commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodney Waldhoff <>
Subject Re: [functor] draft proposal
Date Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:36:45 GMT
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Ola Berg wrote:

> Comments inline
> >
> > (1.5) interaction with other packages
> >
> > Functor's dependencies upon other components and external libraries should
> > be minimal.
> ...or 'none'? or 'absolutely minimal'? I think that a separate Functor
> package will fail should it be dependent on others.

Perhaps, but that's also covered by (indeed encouraged by) "miminal",
don't you think? I think "this package cannot depedend on anything else"
is a kind of a silly thing to put in the charter.  It doesn't help define
the scope in any meaningful way, and IMO may just contribute to the
"monolithic component" design approach--functor needs feature "y" but
can't depend upon another component, so I guess feature "y" must be added
to functor.

The expression "minimal" should encourage but not strictly require zero
dependencies, since no one can argue that 0 is not minimal.  If functor
adds a dependency, then there should be a good reason for it, else we fail
to meet this "minimal dependency" criterion.

> >
> > The Functor component will be initially populated with source derived,
> > copied, or moved from existing functor-related code available in
> > Jakarta-Commons.  Some non-normative examples include the Closure,
> > Factory, Predicate, and Factory interfaces and some of the related
> Closure, Factory, Predicate, Factory... two kind of factories ? ;-) (I
> guess you mean Transformer?)

Doh, good catch. Yes, the final draft should remove or replace one of
those "Factory"s

 - R.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message