> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:29 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [lang] Builders complete? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 5:12 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [lang] Builders complete? > > > > > > > from: Steve Downey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Post release, there should also be a discussion of introspectionX > > > versions of > > > the reflectionX methods. I know we ruled it out of scope > > for [lang], since > > > it's more of a bean thing. But the builder classes aren't > > things that > > > [beanutils] is really doing, at least at the moment. And > > duplicating the > > > XBuilder classes in [beanutils] doesn't really seem to me > > to be a good way of > > > serving our clients. > > > > This is the cyclic dependency issue I raised a long time ago. > > There's no simple solution. Unless [beanutils] merges with [lang]. > > Is there any reason why [beanutils] couldn't merge with > [lang]. IMO, reflection vs. introspection is on the same > level (language), and most people are up at the application > level anyway. > > Is anyone willing to support the merge? I am. Better yet, > is anyone UNWILLING/AGAINST beanutils merging with lang?
I'm for it. I'll certainly help in any way I can. > > Scott > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Steven Caswell [EMAIL PROTECTED] a.k.a Mungo Knotwise of Michel Delving "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them..." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
