Simon Kitching wrote:
[snip]
> So the rule would be:
> * the project provides both an interface and an abstract class that
> implements that interface.
> * code that *uses* the API should always use just the interface, ie
> *call* methods via the interface and pass instances around as the
> interf
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Jörg Schaible
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
>
> Clirr is used to detect unintentional binary incompatibility. If we
> document the facts (in site documentation and javadoc) everybody is informed
> and should not be surprised if we actually follow this ag
-- Forwarded message --
From: Rico Basekow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:23 AM
Subject: bug?- org.apache.tools.bzip2.CBZip2InputStream
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Henri,
I had a problem to unzip my bzip2 file on linux with Apache Ant 1.7.1.
I added two lines in the
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:55 AM, Paul Libbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 05-nov.-08 à 10:22, XuQing Tan a écrit :
>>
>> I'm recently investigating some excutable xml scripters. So I want to know
>> is Jelly still in development, since it's last release is in 2004?
>
> Nick,
>
> Unfortunately
Because the rule is that embedded double-quotes should be doubled.
This is essential when unescaping a CSV list.
For example, suppose one needs to escape the two fields:
abcd","efgh
zyx
This is encoded as
"abcd"",""efgh",xyz
This allows the individual fields to be recovered correctly, as the
u
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 10:55 +0100, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> Jelly is still unbeatable as a glue in xml processing.
I think that is a conjecture, a claim even, that needs justification and
support. Groovy, Python, Ruby people would argue (and I think quite
rightly) that XML is a data specification
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:48 AM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Having commons-proxy support running AOP Advices for specific methods
>>while passing the others through automatically would be nice. However
>>the standard "pointcut" language for specifying which methods to match
>>is rathe
>From another thread, Simon Kitching wrote:
>
>The decorator pattern is hugely useful. In particular, you can apply a
>decorator to an existing object (eg something returned by a library),
>which you cannot achieve by subclassing something. Even when it is your
>own code that is creating the actual
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Carman schrieb:
>>
>> This pattern (replacing the implementation of specific methods) is not
>> supported "out of the box" by Proxy, but perhaps it should be? I
>> wonder how common it is that you'd want to replace t
James Carman schrieb:
>
> This pattern (replacing the implementation of specific methods) is not
> supported "out of the box" by Proxy, but perhaps it should be? I
> wonder how common it is that you'd want to replace the implementation
> of certain methods and you wouldn't just go ahead and extend
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The standard JDK interface-based proxying would certainly become more
> useful.
>
I meant changing Proxy's ProxyFactory from a class to an interface (or
perhaps introducing the IProxyFactory interface and leaving
ProxyFact
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project commons-configuration-test has an issue affecting its community
integration.
Thi
Le 05-nov.-08 à 10:22, XuQing Tan a écrit :
I'm recently investigating some excutable xml scripters. So I want
to know
is Jelly still in development, since it's last release is in 2004?
Nick,
Unfortunately no.
For a long time it was annoyed by the fact that building it required
huge resour
James Carman schrieb:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So the rule would be:
>> * the project provides both an interface and an abstract class that
>> implements that interface.
>> * code that *uses* the API should always use just the interface, ie
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the rule would be:
> * the project provides both an interface and an abstract class that
> implements that interface.
> * code that *uses* the API should always use just the interface, ie
> *call* methods via the interfa
Hi, all
I'm recently investigating some excutable xml scripters. So I want to know
is Jelly still in development, since it's last release is in 2004?
--
Thanks & Best Regards!
Nick
Jörg Schaible schrieb:
>>> IMHO we should define what we want to reach. Adding a
>>> method to an interface does not break *binary* compatibility
>>> of existing code. The method is simply not called. However, a
>>> client will have to implement the new method, if CConf is a
>>> compile time depend
Hi Oliver,
Oliver Heger wrote:
> Jörg Schaible schrieb:
>> Hi,
[snip]
>> IMHO we should define what we want to reach. Adding a
>> method to an interface does not break *binary* compatibility
>> of existing code. The method is simply not called. However, a
>> client will have to implement the new
18 matches
Mail list logo
