commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <>
Subject RE: [collections] Collections 3.2/4.0
Date Fri, 10 Feb 2006 04:53:35 GMT
What would make BoundedBuffer more a 4.0 thing as opposed to a 3.2 thing?
Or were you saying that we should agree on the contents for 4.0?

-----Original Message-----
From: Henri Yandell [] 
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:26 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [collections] Collections 3.2/4.0

On 2/9/06, Stephen Colebourne <> wrote:
> Plan for collections 3.2
> ------------------------
> Agree contents
> (notably, I'd like to remove BoundedBuffer)

Shuoldn't that be a 4.0 thing?

> Check bugs
> Build and release in single jar format
> Plan for collections 4.0
> ------------------------
> Break collections into smaller jars
> (either as one project or multiple)

We getting lots of complaints of it being too large? Or just some noisy

Bear in mind, if we have a bunch of jars that people will only
complain that it's confusing and there are too many jars.

> Remove deprecations (maybe to a deprecated jar)

Just kill them I reckon; there's only so much effort we should go to
maintain legacy things, otherwise it all gets very painful.


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

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

View raw message