Stephen McConnell wrote:
Leo Sutic wrote:
What I'd like to know is if this will lead to a dependency
on clazz for framework? I would be -1 on any such dependency,
especially while clazz is still very much growing in scope and
dependencies itself.
My initial impression is that the dependencies we would be looking at
are basically at the core of the [clazz] package (not the reflection or
attributes stuff). This means basically the org.apache.commons.clazz.*
(i.e. none of the subpackages). Before conconsidering the framework
relationship I think there is some validation/experimentation to be done
- and yes, I agree that while clazz is evolving and in sandbox - its not
a candidate for the framework. On the otherhand - I figure that working
with the [clazz] project now is more likely to ensure it meets are needs
and that [clazz] gets a shot in the arm though validation against real
requirements.
Why can't we collaborate with them in Jakarta Commons Sandbox?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
