Henri Yandell wrote:
I think there's pretty much wide-spread agreement to the pain of that
issue, in and out of Commons.
Stephen's suggestion for the JLC ones are that they would not have any
dependencies (currently they don't).
The 'deep end' stuff tends to depend on these, ie) there will be far
more roC->JLC dependencies than internal roC dependencies. Also the
Commons components (JLC especially) maintain backwards compat within
minor versions (as we all do) so the only times you should be having
this pain is when Apache Foo depends on vers 1.0 and Apache Bar
depends on vers 2.0.
Lang (1.x, 2.x) and Collections (1.x, 2.x, 3.x) are the only ones that
spring to mind that have more than one major version release.
So I'm not sure the issue is as painful as your memory paints it. Now
when the container depends on commons, that seems to cause more pain
(cf commons-logging complaints).
No the commons issue is pretty painful in large environments and with
"the wild" of live support. Yes Tomcat's dependence on commons-logging
is a pain. I'd feel more comfortable with a single versioned release
rather than a bunch more pieces that have to be put together. Let them
live together and die together.
-Andy
Hen
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
