commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [lang] Designs and Futures
Date Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:22:23 GMT

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

> There are two areas that I see commons as poor at achieving - release early
> release often and dependencies. The code itself is generally very good
> (despite what some might say).

Agreed on both.

> [lang] is an example of this. It has needed a release for some time, if only
> to fix some of the glaring bugs in 2.0. It has also had changes applied to
> it that increase dependencies.

[io] is out, so unless anyone is against it, I'll start working on [lang]
bugs on my Saturday evening Apache sessions.

> I know that many reading this don't get my point here. Perhaps if I used the
> word coupling instead that would help? In the Validate case, there is no
> need for Validate to be coupled to StringUtils and ArrayUtils. It wasn't in
> its original design, I was just reverting code back to 2.0.
> This extends to other packages - ideally, no subpackage within lang should
> depend on another. We won't achieve that, but it should be a basic goal. (It

As a basic rule, I think it's pretty fair to state that package hierarchy
should be obeyed as far as dependencies goes. This means that a package's
classes may not depend on a sibling package, or a child package, but it may
depend on a super-package or classes within the same package.

Looking at the Validate example, I think it's pretty small fry. It's in
the same package as String/ArrayUtils, so logically should be able to
depend on them, and it's merely the isEmpty methods.

I'm +1 to maintaining the isEmpty calls, but do agree with Stephen's
general principle.

> Finally, it should be noted that [lang] has about 30 open calls, and many
> are valid. This suggests a wide user base who want this component supported
> and improved. The issue for us is more to do with [lang] satisfying our own
> personal isues already, so we don't feel motivated to do anything about it -
> its not our itch any more. But somehow, we need to at least get 2.1 out,
> then take it from there.

Agreed, and I've been slacking.

> [lang] is actually a great achievement, as almost certainly the most widely
> used library of its type. Lets not lose that achievement.

My sentiments too.


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

View raw message