On 7/14/07, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
> One area for discussion is the split between the optional Collections
> component and the 'Core' beanutils. Do we maintain that, or should we
> just fold the code back together?
>
> 1.7.0 shipped three versions:
>
> commons-beanutils-1.7.0.jar
> commons-beanutils-core-1.7.0.jar
> commons-beanutils-collections-1.7.0.jar
>
> where the first is the sum of the second and third.
>
> Personally I think we should just merge them back together. It's not
> worth the effort.
The purpose is to avoid forcing users to take dependencies that they are
not interested in, [collections] in this case. As such I think that the
split is a Good Thing.
Main problems with this are that we didn't do that. We kept a merged
version for the normal beanutils jars, and released a couple of lesser
jars that are probably not used.
Given that BeanUtils is looking pretty old and tired, I'm not sure its
users really want to discover classes missing when next they upgrade
the beanutils jar. In which case, we're just wasting effort by having
a separate pair of jars.
My view is that we have the following options:
1) Merge em back in and just release the 1 jar.
2) Split them; do not release a beanutils.jar (or if we do, it's
beanutils-core renamed) and setup beanutils-collections as a separate
component in Commons or as a child of beanutils with core as an
equivalent child (ie: Maven2 multiproject).
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
