It should definitely be a post [lang] release question. I don't know if [beanutils] is close to a release, but it might even be a post N+1 release for them.
Overall, I like the idea. I think it opens up a lot of possibilities in both directions. But managing it well will take some thought. What's in [lang] is 'good enough'. Lets release it. On Wednesday 18 September 2002 11:57 am, Henri Yandell wrote: > I've no clear beliefs against it. I lack a good understanding of the whole > of BeanUtils scope and size and I'm not sure whether this affects a Lang > release. BeanUtils is one of those, I now know how to use, I will replace > my own version, but I need to find out what it doesn't do that mine does > and get inside it to feel good about it things :) > > So one question to your suggestion is, does this question block release? > > [mental note. figure out the size of beanUt] > > Hen > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Steven Caswell wrote: > > > -----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]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
