Yes, there have been many proposals to place them in [lang], but it didn't work out. (and I'm fine by that). One key reason is that the [collections] functors are actually quite limited in scope and are really quite tied to collections. The full implementation of functors is a project in itself - [functor] - in the sandbox. Stephen
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There are two issues here: (1) where is the best place for functor things to > live in and (2) some folks are allergic ;-) to some projects depending on > each other. > > Gary > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Keith Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 15:24 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [collections] Functors: why in commons.collections and not > > commons.lang? > > > > I understand that Functor interfaces (Factory, Predicate, Closure, > > Transformer) are used by classes in the collections library, and need > > to be accessible by that library. > > > > However, I believe these interfaces are universally useful in cases > > having nothing to do with collections. > > > > It's too bad they're not in java.lang. I wonder if they could have > > been > > placed in commons.lang instead of commons.collections. I guess that > > would have required that commons.lang *always* be present when > > commons.collections was used, and that is undesirable. Is this how > > the decison was made to include them in commons.collections? > > > > - Keith Bennett > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now > > http://companion.yahoo.com/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
