commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Oxspring <>
Subject Re: [id] util package
Date Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:15:06 GMT
(haven't studied [id] too hard so forgive me if I'm jumping in with 
potential nonsense)

Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> So two solutions:
> 1) Create one package scoped utils class in [id] with just the relevant
> methods on it.
> 2) Produce two multiple files - id-all, id-uuid and id-simple, the first two
> having a codec dependency.

Why do compiletime and runtime dependancies have to be blurred?  Sure 
the [id] project requires [codec] to compile for the uuid part but if 
people want to download and run just the simple stuff, they don't need 
codec.  [codec] becomes an optional dependancy that is required only 
when people try to load a class that uses it - obviously a docs issue is 
created but a simple FAQ should sort it.  Ant ran it's optional.jar this 
way for ages and it was pretty managable, at least while the number of 
dependancies was low.

Personally, I'd favour a single jar with an optional dependancy but its 
just another option in the cut'n'paste vs deep depencanies compromise - 
pleasing everyone is always going to be a struggle.

Either way, I'd avoid creating id-all.jar as having one jar containing a 
superset of another in the same release is confusing (at least to me) 
and opens the door to classpath hell.

Hope that helps,


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

View raw message