On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -0
>
> Would like to see findbugs warnings sorted. I have not retested
> after Luc's fixes, but I in addition to the ones he mentions, I am
> not sure I understand the last one (on the site in ~bayard) and
> whether or not it is in fact a bug. I think findbugs is complaining
> because
>
> *public* ExtendedMessageFormat(String pattern, Locale locale,
> Map<String, ? *extends* FormatFactory> registry) {
> * super*(DUMMY_PATTERN);
> setLocale(locale);
> * this*.registry = registry;
> applyPattern(pattern);
> }
>
> if you look at the source for MessageFormat, the constructor above
> calls applyPattern. The overridden version in [lang] tests if
> registry is null and delegates back to the super version if registry
> is null. This is probably OK, but findbugs is likely complaining
> because registry ends up getting read before it is initialized.
Fixes definitely welcome on this one. My take has been the gamble that
it's not a backwards compat issue to fix and therefore not a reason to
block on.
> * It would be great to fix the too long lines causing checkstyle
> problems as well or just get rid of the line length check. I will
> shorten the offending lines if you are OK with that.
I've scratched my head on these a few times. Making our lines shorter
simply to get rid of a 120 char check is bad. None of the lines are
over-long for a reason.
Minor non-release blocking issue.
> * Need to address Matt's point and make sure otherwise this is the
> horse we are going to ride from API standoint. I would say "speak
> now or forever hold you peace" and cut another RC with the changes.
The one example (WordUtils.capitalize) is extremely minor; we end up
having to maintain a 1 line method that links directly to the other
one. Annoying; but not the end of the world to have deprecated until
4.0.
Matt - do you have any idea how much we need to do here?
> * One last nit - why did we decide to dump the Ant build. Version
> 2.6 seems to have a working Ant build. Why wouldn't the same build
> work for 3.0. If you are OK with this, I will try to get the Ant
> build restored.
IIRC, because no one was maintaining it. I've dumped other Ant builds
in other components too over the last 4 years (along with maven1
builds). I'm generally -1 to the "there are many ways to build it"
approach. It takes the pain of dealing with one build system and
increases it to 3x the pain. [manage build1, manage build2 and then
ensure build1 and build2 stay in sync].
What's the scope of the Ant build? Just to build and run the unit
tests, or more than that?
Can you create a Ant script that does that based on the pom?
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
