Conor MacNeill wrote:
>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of Geir Magnusson Jr.
> > Sent: Friday, 23 March 2001 3:20 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: New Subprojects
> >
> >
> > Peter Donald wrote:
> > > > Jon Stevens :
> > > > >For #2: It certainly could start in the Commons.
> > >
> > > No it couldn't from what I understand. Commons won't allow
> > imports directly
> > > from turbine/avalon and to try to do such a complex system generic from
> > > start may be a bit of a PITA at this stage. Especially when both
> > > turbine/avalon already offer a lot of support.
> >
> > Why wouldn't the import be allowed? That's one of the reasons for
> > commons : to provide a place to collaborate across projects...
> >
>
> I guess it would depend on their level of coupling, wouldn't it. It is the
> difference between a framework and a collection of common utility classes.
> When you import framework classes, often it seems to be viral. To use that
> one class you end up importing quite a few other supporting classes. That is
> what makes the Commons a difficult project, there is often a natural desire
> to make it into a framework. The alternative may be a lot of "insulating"
> interfaces to allow the components to be plugged into a system without the
> supporting framework.
It also functions simply as a place to work - what goes on in the
'sandbox' doesn't have to be an Official Component (tm).
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
