On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:23:23PM +0200, Leo Simons wrote: .. > > > Commons doesn't see it that way and feels any component that uses the > > > avalon framework interfaces as having an ugly dependency on some > > > external project. > > > > Not an ugly dependency, just *a* dependency. If it's got a dep on an > > external project, that rather limits it's reusability, defeating the > > point of it being in Commons. > > How does depending on Avalon Framework limit reusability? You'll have a > really tough time convincing me here...
Here is the muddled thinking that went through my head, and probably the heads of many Commons people: It limits reusability because it forces COP onto people, and many people won't adopt things that force an ideology onto them. Take the example of Excalibur's Datasource, and Commons DBCP. Functionally, they seem quite similar, except that Datasource depends on Framework and fits in well with COP. That's it's selling point. If you've bought into COP, then Datasource is better than DBCP. If you haven't bought into COP (most Jakarta projects), then you might as well use DBCP and avoid the reliance on Framework. Simpler is better. Luckily for them, there's a mailing list full of Commons developers beavering away duplicating Excalibur functionality, but without the Framework dep. Hence DBCP is more popular that Datasource. But I think you're right, and my conclusion was wrong. Only people who have bought into COP should be using COP-enabled components, so all the above arguments are baseless. You win ;P --Jeff > cheers, > > - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
