On Thursday 26 September 2002 12:27 pm, Berin Loritsch wrote: > Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > In the same way as [logging], by not being a regexp package itself. > > > > Of course it may just not be appropriate... > > To be honest, I don't like the "autodiscovery" mechanisms in Commons > logging. I would be hard pressed to support another something like > that for something less likely to be in widespread use. It is possible > to just use the project that you need and stick with it for RegEx. > > There are very few projects out there that are meant to be used as a > library that require a regex package (that I am aware of, but I don't > get out much anymore). The chances of using two projects that require > different RegEx solutions are so minute, that a commons version doesn't > seem necessary. > > That's just my 2 cents.
The odds of having two projects that require regexp packages that can also tolerate having the definition of regular expression changed underneath them approaches zero. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
