>Mark wrote:
>> Eric Pugh wrote:
>> This backlash against multiple commons jars is happening in a lot of
places.
>> However, I think it is a bit shortsighted.  If you are in a non server
>> environment, I understand the problem, but in a server environment with
lots
>> of harddrive space, I don't.  Additionally, since in a server app you are
>> likely to need all thoses dependencies any way.  I think almost every app
I
>> work on has commons-lang, commons-loggin, and commons-collections
included.
>> And then depending on what else, commons-discovery and commons-beanutils
>> show up all the time!

I think that this comment is a little shortsighted. We are still using
weblogic 5.1 and constantly have problems with the multitude of third party
libraries that we are using. WL 5.1 does not seem to find libraries in the
WEB-INF/lib directory, as it should, so these have to be set using the
classpath. Unfortunately, on Windows NT, the commandline has a size
limitation. Every so often, after adding another library, we are unable to
start the server due to a "the command is too long" error. This is a PITA
and we have been working around it for several years.

Having to add 3 or 4 extra commons jars just because I want to use ONE of
the libraries is lame. I'm all for code reuse but it seems as if the commons
developers have created alot of unnecessary dependancies between the
projects (maybe as a show of solidarity, who knows). This also creates
versioning problems. If I want to update one library, I may have to update
several of it's dependant libraries, ad nauseum. I already deal with this
hassle with the rapidly changing XML libraries and the fact that some idiot
library developers insist on including dated versions of the dom and sax
api's in their jars.
</rant>

People need to realize that there are lots of legacy users out there who
aren't limited by only 'harddrive space'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to