On 12 December 2012 13:17, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Agreed. > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
