Or maybe start by looking how we can factor it out completely?..
I am not criticizing anybody (I should start with myself, ugh), just
trying to point to a bigger problem. We've always wanted to be
pragmatic when making decisions whether to include library X or Y. It
saved time and shifted maintenance burden to someone else, so it
seemed like a good thing.
Now that Java and J2EE are becoming the proverbial "COBOL of the 21st
century", library situation becomes that of a Windows "DLL hell".
Versioning of most popular libs is starting to cause pain (the worst
offenders are commons-*, but also JDOM).
So I am starting to re-evaluate our "pragmatic" approach. We are a
framework provider, and unlike end-user applications, it does matter
what is under the hood. Fewer dependencies is better; zero
dependencies is ideal (though unrealistic at this point). Look at
HSQLDB - a single jar that does everything (they even have their own
HashMap, presumably for 1.1 compatibility). As a result, the only
possible conflict it can cause is with another version of self.
Again, I am not calling for a rewrite of Cayenne, just wanted to
point out to our priorities.
Andrus
On Oct 7, 2005, at 9:02 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> Hi Malcom,
>
> I'm taking this back on the list. I hope you don't mind.
>
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:32:11 -0400, Malcolm Edgar
> <malcolm.edga..mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I also have yet to see java.util.logging used under commons-
>> logging, all
>> projects I have been on use Log4J or NT logging under Log4J.
>>
>> Regarding JDOM one solution is to do a compliance build against
>> JDOM 0.7 to
>> ensure no new post 0.7 methods are used, but use JDOM 1.0 for
>> distribution.
>> This issue can up with the Click web application framework which
>> uses JDOM
>> being deployed onto WebSphere 6. Earlier versions bundled with JDOM
>> 1.0worked fine, but latter Click versions started to use post
>> 0.7 methods and raised classloader errors we starting. The "new"
>> method
>> which caused the error was Element.getAttributeValue(String, String).
>>
>
> The problem with that solution is that the JDOM API changed a fair
> bit between versions. It's a good idea though and I'll look into
> it. However, I know I had to change code written for 0.9 to even
> work in 1.0.
>
> --
> Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Oct 07 2005 - 21:49:03 EDT