> Why do you consider a dependency on Antlr a negative (the runtime is 148k), > JSON is a formally defined language after all.
I don't know a person face to face who actually can handle antlr. Its a cool tool, but if you need to create a patch for your json lib, it can be hell. Plain java is understood by every java developer (well, most ;-)). > I always scratch my head when I hear "there are dependencies!" when any > application I create or use always has dependencies. I wonder how much > redundancies and bug fixes would be removed if, for example, all Apache Java > code (or even just the Commons code) went the other way and did depend on > each other. You might argue we would end up in 'jar hell' but that might > force us to better draw boundaries between components and fix bugs :) In maven age I don't feel bad with dependencies, but one json lib did depend on asm version 1 once, and hibernate upgraded to asm version 2, and that gave me nightmare. I ended up with opening my json package and copied all version 1 files into it with own package name. I recompiled, brought this to my repos and so on. This was hell (cause my customer didn't want to pay the time). For me json is so basic, that we can do everything without any dependencie. And a basic lib should not have any, I think. Thanks! Christian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
