[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TEXT-36?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15769437#comment-15769437
]
Duncan Jones commented on TEXT-36:
----------------------------------
It would be good to hear why people are concerned about a link between TEXT and
RNG. Is it a fear of Maven jar hell? I.e. TEXT depends upon a specific version
of RNG, which clashes somehow with the preferred version of the user's code?
If that's the concern, then I don't think Gregory's suggestion saves us
anything, since we'd have to depend upon RNG to offer the interface.
IMO, the four options I can see in descending order of preference are:
# Eat our own dog food - use RNG as the only visible option. Users can bridge
to java.util.Random using RNG's bridge classes if they must.
# As above, but explicitly offer overloads with java.util.Random.
# Offer only java.util.Random in the interface, but shade RNG so that our
internal default implementations are as good as can be.
# Don't use RNG at all.
> Dependency on "Commons RNG"
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: TEXT-36
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TEXT-36
> Project: Commons Text
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Gilles
> Labels: api
> Fix For: 1.0
>
>
> This is a follow-up of a
> [discussion|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TEXT-34?focusedCommentId=15762623&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15762623]
> held in TEXT-34.
> IMHO, there is no harm in depending on the ["commons-rng-client-api"
> module|http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-rng/commons-rng-client-api/javadocs/api-1.0/index.html]
> of Commons RNG; the "zero dependency" mantra does not hold here, since TEXT
> already depends on LANG.
> OTOH, I see that it is counter-productive (i.e. it harms the Commons project
> as a whole) to not advertize or use other Commons components, despite the
> "own dog food" phrase appearing recurrently on the "dev" ML.
> Rather than having people blindly use {{java.util.Random}}, we should allow
> them to choose wisely, based on full information.
> IMO, that means to indeed use {{UniformRandomProvider}} in order to raise
> awareness about alternatives to the sub-optimal algorithm used by the JDK.
> However, if some Commons developers do not trust that the
> {{UniformRandomProvider}} interface can be stable enough for TEXT, then we
> should follow Jochen Wiedemann's advice (cf. archive of the "dev" ML) and
> define TEXT's own interface to random numbers, with bridges to it from
> {{UniformRandomProvider}} and from {{java.util.Random}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
