> On Sep 12, 2017, at 12:38 AM, Amey Jadiye <ameyjad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Rob,
I'm going to be away from my computer until Friday. I'll give it a look then if that's alright with you. Cheers, -Rob > > I have submitted pull req. let me know if below action plan looks good. > > * RandomStringGenerator in commons-text > * new RandomStringUtils in commons-text with different package using > RandomStringGenerator > * Mark RandomStringUtils in commons-lang as deprecated > * release commons-text 1.2 > * release commons-lang 3.7 (doesn't matter ATM) > * later remove RSU from commons-lang from Commons lang 4.0 > > Regards, > Amey > >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017, 4:43 PM Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:05 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 06:55:49 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote: >>>>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:34 AM, Amey Jadiye <ameyjad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rob, >>>>> >>>>> Looking at frequency I think more number of requests coming >>>>> for RandomStringUtils for its simplicity. >>>>> >>>>> RandomStringGenerator is strong , flexible but one can't use it >> quickly. >>>>> Also I think this tool should belong in Commons text's arsenal. I'm not >>>>> only moving RandomStringUtils to text but changing its core logic with >>>>> using >>>>> RandomStringGenerator which seems fair to me. So finally we should >> release >>>>> text-1.2 rather doing rollback of deprecation and release lang 3.6.1, >> WDYT >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I definitely lean this direction, but if I recall correctly we drew >>>> “line between [lang] and [text]” to be: a piece of functionality >>>> should go in [lang] if the arbitrary java developer would probably >>>> want it, whereas text is geared towards folks actually doing text >>>> manipulation [1]. >>>> >>>> Personally I’m a +0 to +1 on doing this, but I wanted to gauge other >>>> folks’ thoughts here because I feel like we’re in that grey area here. >>>> That said, I’m perfectly willing to roll a 1.2 [text] release. >>> >>> "Grey area" should favour small components. >> >> Fair point. I take that to mean that you think that it should either go >> into text to make lang smaller or its own component. >> >> I suppose because the generator lives in [text] that makes a good argument >> for [text]. >> >> More thoughts out there? >> >> -Rob >> >>> >>> Gilles >>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -Rob >>>> >>>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/a2urysnxvxihfoto >>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Amey >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017, 12:00 AM Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Amey Jadiye <ameyjad...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Benedikt, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about we keep that deprecated in lang and release Text-1.2 ? >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m on board with this if folks are complaining and the original >> intent >>>>>> was to deprecate things in [lang]. Why not roll forward as opposed to >>>>>> backwards? >>>>>> >>>>>> But, that opens the question: Is RandomStringUtils something that most >>>>>> folks would want (i.e. should it be in [lang] or [text])? I think that >>>>>> question is more the heart of the problem here. Either direction seems >>>>>> reasonable to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Rob >>>>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
