Personally I think that commons is a bit TOO open. I'm not sure the
Java world can suffer another project designed to throw us into circular
dependency hell. These little mini-component projects that all depend
on each other combined with the inherent crappiness of Java classloading
(.NET does this better) are just misery to those of us who have to work
with them and support real people using them. I don't think it is "deep
end" "shallow end" -- it is that these are all interdependent and
versioned seperately and then end up with different parts of apache
requiring vers 1 and others requiring 1.1 and 1 having a horrible bug in it.
-andy
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
<snip/>
I hope to help in "dealing with" roC.
Yep, that's my chief point on the thirty four pieces, not two pieces
- the
roC still needs solutions. Yet more where we should be thinking about
our
project (Jakarta) and not just making one step (JLC) and being happy
with
it.
<snap/>
I expressed a similar opinion in response to the JLC proposal on
commons-dev. Given that we're in this mess with intermingling threads
on commons-dev@ and general@, forgive me for cross-posting that as a
hyperlink:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-commons-dev&m=114166343620440&w=2
Yep, I agree with your email there.
Sorry for snapping,
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Andrew C. Oliver
SuperLink Software, Inc.
Java to Excel using POI
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/services/poi
Commercial support including features added/implemented, bugs fixed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
