Scott Sanders wrote:
>>From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
> So then you start moving it over. In commons everything is broken out
> component-wise, but this is nothing new. Let's start talking about how
> to go forward with whatever you/we feel should be in the commons. I see
> commons as a bunch of components, but I tend to NOT see a framework in
> commons.
>
> So let's get all Excalibur's and Avalon's utility code into commons,
> then Excalibur still uses it, and commons doesn't have to rewrite
> (although rewriting seems to be the jakarta way, IMHO). Everybody
> should win. Right?
Theorhetically.
Now Avalon utilities include a pooling implementation that is nothing like
the Pool package in Commons. Should the new pooling package be moved in
with that? And then what about the synchronization primitives? Do we know
where they would go?
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
