Hi, Gary Gregory wrote:
> To restate my opinion and that of others: It is not a good thing to end up > with components Commons Random A, Commons Random B, Commons Random C, and > so on. We already have a new Commons Random Something component. Related > code should be modules of that component. let's see it from the practical side. Commons RNG is supposed to stay stable as long as possible. Commons RNG Tools might have a much faster turn to break APIs. If you put both together, you'll have either to manage the submodules like individual components with own GAV (and where's the benefit then apart from our unprepared tooling of such an scenario?) or you have to change the package name of Commons RNG quite more often then necessary, just because you restructure something in the RNG tools that is incaompatible (not very good for users of RNG). Therefore I'm with Gilles here and would simply say: Let's try it with two independent components and time will tell if it was a good choice or not. Cheers, Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
