From: "Ola Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Architecture/patterns/design is fine, but in the end > >we need code. > > True. I can supply code, implementing the patterns I have suggested (spent last two years trying different methods to implement them). > > But consensus is needed at some level for others to use the common implementations (I guess the commons project as a whole has the same situation in relation to the other projects: \"Hey, use _our_ stuff instead!\"). > > What I said was (removing the words \'patterns\', \'architecture\' or \'design\'): reach agreement on how a general thing is to be done. Without the agreement between at least two component groups, the whole idea of single implementation of the general mechanisms are of no use anyway. > > Java offers this possibility for fine grain binary object reuse. Done right it translates into a massive heck of many things achieved with absolutely minimal effort. And even if such an ideal case is never to happen, one single general mechanism is a bargain. > > But it is dependent on 1) someone seeing how a certain mechanism could be used in more contexts than now, and 2) everybody else\'s ability to acknowledge what this person has seen. > > This will probably mean a slower pace. The role of such a \"general reuse project\" is often to come in afterwards, suggesting refactoring of existing API:s (not necessarily afterwards but in practice this is often the case). If and only if the benefits of refactoring are so great that it is worth doing, it will be done. If not, the whole idea is pointless in practice (albeit fine in theory).
Just so we're clear, I do basically support the idea. And refactoring after the 'first go' is a fairly typcial methodology as far as I am concerned. I've contributed to the Predicate code before, and would do so again even if it moved to lang. However, I am sure that it would annoy me (and the committers) to have to patch everything in two places. I suggest that you draw up a list of classes that you see as being put in lang (seeing as you seem to be suggesting you have some of your own). That way we might see what the finished lang would look like. I also think that you need to define a one sentence 'what the package does'. Like collections could be 'provide extensions and adaptors to the Java Collections API compatable with J2SE 1.2'. Finally, I think its significant that if you go to the collections website it doesn't mention Predicate, Transformer or Closure - this kind of emphasises their don't belong status. Stephen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
