On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > Thank you for doing another RC. > > > > While I was digging for a justification of the Clirr errors, I found this > > in the release notes: "Clirr reports several errors for this release due > to > > moving constants from the Email class to the newly introduced > > EmailConstants interface. These changes are guaranteed to be binary > > compatible." > > > > Is it really binary compatible? What if I use reflection to access the > > constant on Email, will the reflection call be redirected to > > EmailConstants? There's unit test for ya ;) > > > > Using an interface to define constants is a no-no in my book. I've seen > > this discussed before in other places and for a long time, but to > > summarize, I see an interface as defining a contract for a class to > > implement. A constant does not fit. > > > > Constants in interface feels like a hack to provide the short hand of a > > class implementing an interface just to be able to access the constants > > without qualifying them with a type. Not nice design IMO and a dubious us > > of an interface, very Java 1.0. It seems that static imports is another > > attempt to solve this desire for a short hand to use constants. > > > > What to do? Move the constants back to their 1.2? What's so bad about > that? > > Hm... > > > > Make the EmailConstants a class instead of an interface? If binary > > compatible is broken, the constants have to move back, and you can still > > have a new EmailConstants class and deprecate the old constants to point > to > > the new class. > > > > Maybe I'll see this more clearly in the AM... > > > > Interested in you all's feedback. > > > > Hi Gary, > > well, I think we go in circles with this change ;-). > > I assumed that this topic is settled after reading the comment from sebb in > the RC2 thread (see http://markmail.org/message/svrb7nf3ocz7lgmd). > > Otoh, it's the first time I see constants in an interface and would be in > favor of reverting to the previous version (also because I do not fully > understand the rationale behind the change, some of the constants are not > even used and thus have been deprecated). > -- > > Maybe we should postpone this kind of refactoring to 2.0 and do it then in > a proper way. Introducing this interface just created headaches and I also > had to disable some checks (e.g. InterfaceIsAType in checkstyle) because of > it. > That sounds like a good way to go to get 1.3 out the door. Gary > > Thomas > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Thomas Neidhart > > <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I would like to call a vote from commons-email-1.3 based on RC5. > > > > > > This release candidate has the following changes compared to RC4 > > > > > > +) update index and building page with correct information wrt Java > > > compatibility > > > +) update release notes with info on Java compatibility and Clirr > errors > > > +) fix svn:keywords for all source files and remove use of $Date$ tags > > > +) add $Id$ tags for all newly introduced source files in 1.3 > > > +) update javax.mail.mail dependency to 1.4.5 > > > +) fix PMD warnings and add NOPMD comment for false positives > > > +) added findbugs exclude filter for false positives > > > +) fix release date in changes.xml > > > +) correctly removed *.asc.[md5,sha1] files from Nexus staging area > > > > > > The files: > > > > > > The artifacts are deployed to Nexus: > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-137/ > > > > > > The tag: > > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/email/tags/EMAIL_1_3_RC5/ > > > > > > The site: > > > http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/email/1.3/RC5/ > > > > > > Additional Notes: > > > > > > o the download page and api links to older releases only work on > > > the published site and will be corrected after release. > > > > > > Please take a look at the commons-email-1.3 artifacts and vote! > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > [ ] +1 release it > > > [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care > > > [ ] -1 no, do not release it because > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
