On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:01:34 -0500, Rob Tompkins wrote:
Based on all the discussion and that RNG isn’t currently included in the pom, this feels like a great 1.1 forward topic because .
[...] because ... ?
I’m going to mark the Jira as 1.X as opposed to 1.0.
Wrt the issue of providing different sources of randomness, I had reached the conclusion that Jörg's proposal was the common (or, perhaps, majority) ground. [Hence, that the custom interface and bridges would be implemented.]
Regarding getting this in, like I said before I’m indifferent.
If I may insist ;-), we should be wary to provide a functionality whose applications are unknown, and could thus be crippled in a way extremely difficult to pinpoint, due to the fact which Bernd emphasized a couple of posts ago:
In a lot of situations people will be happy with j.u.R
IOW, by their nature, applications that use RNGs could look like they work properly even when they don't. I don't know whether applications of [TEXT] could be subject to a bug caused by some RNG weakness, but since no technical (i.e. Java-centric) argument seems convincing for this audience, I'll suggest that you listen to the voice of experts, by reading just the first two paragraphs of the last section of this document (titled "Recommendations"): http://www.colostate.edu/~pburns/monte/rngreport.pdf
I think though that this fits into the RERO area. Also, if we feel that releasing with “RandomStringGenerator” in place restricts this conversation too much. I’m ok with removing it and going out in a later release with it in once we are settled on what it’s API should be.
That seems a reasonable thing to do. The more so that I'm suspicious of the Javadoc saying that "RandomStringBuilder [...] instances are immutable and thread-safe". But that's another issue. Regards (and Happy New Year), Gilles
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
