Stephen Colebourne wrote: >> Jeff said: >> To say (as >> has been said) that this approach is not code reuse but simply copying > smacks of snobbery and is >> incorrect. It is a reuse policy that allows version-freeze on small > portions of code. > > Copied code is copied code. It means dual maintainance and > incompatabilities.
There is no dual maintainance. Everyone maintains the code that he cares about and uses. > What I have consistently failed to understand about this debate is how > commons can ask other jakarta projects to refactor out their common code > when commons is unwilling to do the same job within its own borders. Commons is not asking other projects to refactor common code just for the sake of moving code around and creating dependencies. If someone feels a piece of code would benefit from having more hands and more diverse opinions - and is willing to take the risks of more diverse opinions - then commons may be a good idea. It is not in commons charter to create a one-size-fits-all introspection library. What I fail to understand is what is the real issue of debate - if you want to create a library for reflection, do it. That doesn't mean you have to force everyone to use it or to stop people from working on other reflection libraries or to say that the other reflection code should move to your component. If a piece of code works well, is stable, fast, clean and does what it is needed - it will be used, and people will stop working on other implementations. If some other implementation does something different and people need that - then probably both will exist for a while. We must mind our own itches. That's the real issue that people don't seem to understand. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
