+1
---
<br type="_moz" />
On 2016-10-19 13:43, Jörg Schaible wrote:
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
