Ernst Bunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > packages has some merites. for one, you yoursef admit that you wouldn't know > where else to look for it besides the apidocs. It has no effect on mmbase > and mmbase will not use it. So it dousn't have to be in the mmbase packages. > It would rather belong to an application on mmbase, like (heY!) the taglib? > by for instance adding it to bridge.jsp.taglib.util and allowing the list > tags to make use of it it suddenly gets a focus. Everybody can use it (even > without being aware of its existence). allso the responsibility would be > primarily with those who maintain the taglib app.
It has nothing to do with taglib. Not a thing. Besided, I have followed the complete inverse path. Things that are needed for taglib, but have a more general taste, I've put in org.mmbase.bridge.util. E.g. the 'TreeList' was developed for taglib, but of course it is something more general, so I've put it there. Now every brdige use could profit it, and you are not forced to use taglib. > then if it turns out after a while everybody likes to use it, and they tire > of having to install the taglib in order to have access to it you could move > it, and would have plenty support. > Roundabout? yes. I think putting things in the taglib package which are not specific for taglib is stupid. Nobody is going to use it then, becasue nobody could find it, because the location is not logical then. > The question is what you want: lots of featuers (with more added all the > time) or small, clear and logical api that is easy to understand and use > (like the mmci (still) is). These kind of things are not put in the MMCI. They are put besides the MMCI as utils. There are not polluting it, their api is only using the bridge interfaces. The bridge implementation though could use the bridge utils sometimes, but when using the bridge only, you need not be aware of that. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen Mediacentrum 140 H'sum +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US mihxil' [] ()
