Hello Gilles Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> schrieb am Di., 22. Nov. 2016 um 20:55 Uhr:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:40:30 +0000, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > > Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 19. Nov. 2016 > > um > > 19:09 Uhr: > > > >> On Nov 19, 2016 9:50 AM, "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 08:59:50 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Benedikt Ritter > >> <brit...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Hello Gray, > >> >>> > >> >>> Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 19. Nov. > >> 2016 um > >> >>> 01:07 Uhr: > >> >>> > >> >>> > Just a thought: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Does all the current (and future) string escaping code (XML, > >> HTML, > >> ...) > >> >>> > really belong in [lang]? Would it be more natural to have it > >> in > >> [text]? > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> My view on the whole think currently is, that we put stuff that > >> is > >> related > >> >>> to strings in Lang. Code that works on texts should go to Text. > >> To me a > >> >>> text is more than just a string. A text contains works, that > >> make up > >> >>> sentences, which in turn build paragraphs. > >> >>> > >> >>> Using this description, I'd argue that escaping belongs into > >> lang and > >> not > >> >>> into text, because it works on individual characters rather than > >> on > >> texts. > >> >>> > >> >>> But this would also raise the question if the various edit > >> distance > >> >>> algorithms works on texts or on strings. So maybe my distinction > >> is not > >> >>> good at all. > >> >>> > >> >>> Do we need to better specify the scope of text? > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> Great question of course. > >> >> > >> >> I'd like to think of [lang] as "What is missing from the JRE's > >> most > >> basic > >> >> classes and specifically from the java.lang package and some > >> java.util > >> >> classes". > >> >> > >> >> Quoting from our site: > >> >> > >> >> "The standard Java libraries fail to provide enough methods for > >> >> manipulation of its core classes. Apache Commons Lang provides > >> these > >> extra > >> >> methods. > >> >> Lang provides a host of helper utilities for the java.lang API, > >> notably > >> >> String manipulation methods, basic numerical methods, object > >> reflection, > >> >> concurrency, creation and serialization and System properties. > >> Additionally > >> >> it contains basic enhancements to java.util.Date > >> > > >> > > >> > How about "Date" becoming a nice standalone component? ;-) > >> > [Components should be concept-based.] > >> > >> Joda-time covers more than we will ever do here IMO. And Java 8 has > >> new > >> time APIs... maybe when lang is Java 8 based we can look again. For > >> now I'd > >> rather leave dates as is. > >> > > > > Yes, let's get back to topic. > > > > I think we need a clear distinction between string related stuff that > > goes > > into Lang and more complex stuff that goes into text. > > IMHO "more complex" is key, not so much "string" vs "text". > > Hence I suggest [text] is a better place for "RandomStringUtils" > than [lang], and the former should allow dependencies as a > foundation for that complexity; in that case, that would be > "Commons RNG". > I find it hard to draw a line here. What might be complex to me, could be simple for others. I fear that there will always be discussions. > > Regards, > Gilles > > > > > > >> > >> Gary > >> > > >> > How about deprecating "RandomUtils"? > >> > [(About to be) superseded by "Commons RNG".] > >> > > >> > How about to > >> > * moving "RandomStringUtils" to [text] too and > >> > * implement it against a custom interface (as per Jochen's > >> remark) > >> > rather than "java.util.Random" > >> > ? > >> > > >> > > >> >> and a series of utilities > >> >> dedicated to help with building methods, such as hashCode, > >> toString and > >> >> equals." > >> >> > >> >> I do not think edit distances fit into this at all. > >> > > >> > > >> > +1 > >> > > >> > > >> >> I am also questioning whether string escaping belongs in lang as > >> well > >> since > >> >> there are so many escaping domains XML, HTML, JSON, and so on. > >> > > >> > > >> > They don't belong. > >> > > >> > > >> >> IMO, anything that is word based does not belong in lang like > >> >> capitlization. The WordUtils class should be in [text] IMO. The > >> whole > >> lang > >> >> text package should be in [text] IMO. > >> > > >> > > >> > +1 > >> > [To anything that imposes a strict diet on the humongous > >> "components".] > >> > > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Gilles > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
