Re: [Springframework-developer] Re: Some code remarks

[Juergen H. <ju...@in...>]

Pierre,

I agree with Yannick that it is not desirable to depend on Commons Lang.
Spring's core currently has a minimal set of dependencies and just relies on
third-party libraries for full-blown optional features (like proxying full
target via CGLIB). I prefer to keep it that way, at the expense of having
some helper classes in Spring that duplicate Commons Lang functionality.

It is true that Commons Lang is already included in the Spring distribution,
but the only reason for this is to run JPetStore's Struts web tier (as
stated in the lib/readme.txt file in the distribution). Commons Lang is just
a Struts dependency here, not a Spring dependency.

Juergen


-----Original Message-----
From: spr...@li...
[mailto:spr...@li...]On Behalf
Of Pieter Coucke
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:39 PM
To: spr...@li...
Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] Re: Some code remarks


Commons-lang is already inside the Spring distribution, so I don't see the
problem there.

I agree that the commons-whatever packaging is not ideal however, most
projects that decide to use commons, need almost all of the common (pun
intended) jars.  One commons.jar may be a solution, but is probably not
possible since every component has a different release schedule/version.

Anyway, a tool like maven downloads new releases automatically, and
building wars or ears also is usually done in scripts, so it's only a
matter of configuring dependencies once.

If you don't need the JavaScriptUtils class, you can also remove the
dependency on commons-lang to save that extra bit of disk space, it really
think it will make a difference on current 250 GB disks.

Following your blog, we should write everything ourselves (for
componentless support) AND write code that uses a component.  Seems more
work than simply maintaining a dependency to me... Especially something
like HTML escaping (did you have a look at the Spring implementation) is
very likely to contain errors or omissions and shouldn't (in my opinion of
course) be rewritten if a well-maintained solution is already available.

just my two eurocents (a bit more worth than dollarcents now, hehe)

Pieter



Yannick Menager said:
> Pieter Coucke <pieter.coucke <at> onthoo.com> writes:
>> I browsed a bit through the Spring source code and have some remarks
>> about possible code improvements.
>>
>> 1) JavaScriptUtils can be replaced with
>> StringEscapeUtils.escapeJavaScript(), which is in commons-lang 2.0
>> (apparently the current commons-lang version is an old one where this
>> class isn't included)
>>
>> 2) HtmlUtils can be replaced with StringEscapeUtils.escapeHtml()
>
> Please read the following: http://tinyurl.com/66lny
>
> Right now, Spring is not dependent on commons-lang, and I certainly hope
> it will
> stay that way.
>
> *Dependencies are EVIL*
>
> I don't think any spring user has any desire to have to include 10mb of
> commons-this, commons-that just to run their hello world spring
> application (
> see cocoon for one of the scariest examples )
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
> Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
> It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
> _______________________________________________
> Springframework-developer mailing list
> Spr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer
>



-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
Springframework-developer mailing list
Spr...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer