> I would prefer participation in NEW project [converter]. > [lang] is used only for general purpose functionality (if I understand > correctly). > In such case it would be possible to put some specific conversion > functionality. Not only for simple types.
Wouldn't it be better if the base mechanisms for converter was in lang, together with conversions for simple types? The specific conversions belong IMO not in a converter package covering anything from Date to ImaginaryNumber to ResultSet to Money), but in the different specific packages where they are actually needed. A converter package containing specific conversions for many sorts of types would be too broad in scope. Instead, the converter mechanism in itself would be really lightweight, and you only need a dependency to lang (which you probably want anyway, given lang's general usefulness and small footprint). Another argument: If converter wasn't in lang, we would create cross dependencies, since chances are that lang can benefit from the basic conversion mechanisms, and that converter would benefit from lang (and needs to be dependent upon lang if the converter is a variant of Transformation which is a variant of Closure/Command/Whatever). Basic conversion could live happily in lang together with basic Predicate logic, other kinds of transformations etc. Conversion is such a basic pattern. /O -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
