> "only about some avalon interfaces". It took several years to > get those > hammered out that way. There's about 200 pages of docs on our website > describing why they interfaces are the way they are. > > It is _the_ central point, it is half of the added value > avalon has as a > project. > > It is a small thing in terms of code. It is *huge* in terms of thought > and man hours. You can express the contents of the "Design Patterns" > book in about 30 interfaces and as much default impls of those > interfaces. However, the book doesn't really belong inside a commons > package either.
If the interfaces and the default implementations are *common* and don't depend on other projects they do. Where should they go else? Interfaces that should be used in almost every Java software should of course go into a very basic package. Maybe the next JDK would be a nice soulution. ;-))) > Every jakarta project is able to use Avalon Framework. the > dependency is > captured in a single jar file, which is a stable release, > which has been > a stable release for a long time, which doesn't impact > project size very > much, etc etc etc. AFAIK, commons is a project that by definition doesn't depend on other projects. If you don't want to give the interfaces fewer people will use them. Simple but true? Cheers, Ole -- Ole Bulbuk Tel.: 0331/74759/60 Ernst Basler + Partner Fax: 0331/74759/90 Tuchmacherstr. 47 E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 14482 Potsdam WWW: http://www.ebp.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
