> I agree there, in our implementation we had to make more or less the > same utilities classes. it is obvious that many new implementation will have to solve the same problems. so i am not surprised at all that similar "implementations" come up with similar code. i guess it is not the idea of an api to also supply the "sdk" with a number of useful building blocks for builing the implementation. that clearly is the job of the RI. i think we clearly have to separate the concerns here.
> The ValueHelper used to serialize deserialize introduces quite some > dependencies through Text and Base64 classes. > Having them in API is probably too late :) but an independent package > � la "commons-*.jar" may be a good idea. it is not just too late... ;) [see above] of course i can see a jsr-170 helpers/convenience package... regards, david
