commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [beanutils] ConstructorUtils in beanutils: a bad idea
Date Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:59:06 GMT
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 03:25 PM, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:


> Looking through the archives, I now see the thread named
> "[beanutils][lang][PROPOSAL] deprecated beanutils version of MethodUtils"
> [1] which apparently should have been flagged "[VOTE]", if that was
> intended to be a binding vote.

no, that thread wasn't binding. that's one reason why i wanted to try to 
engage you in debate rather than just -1'ing the commit straight away :)

> I'd be OK with leaving beanutils as the repository for reflection oriented
> stuff.  In light of this thread, I think I'd prefer to create true
> reflection oriented commons component.  I'm strongly opposed to moving a
> bunch of stuff into lang because it seems somehow central or widely
> applicable.  I'd rather see a bunch of focused modules with well defined
> scope (however tiny) than a grand utilties framework, and my reading of
> the commons charter says it agrees with me.

though i agree about your point in general, the reflection code fits 
perfectly into lang's spec. they are utility classes for package java.lang.

AFAIK class and reflect(ion?) were intended to be 
introspection-alternatives. they need to rely on solid, low level 
reflection utilities.

- robert

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

View raw message