Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:36 PM, wrote:
Author: sebb
Date: Wed Jan 14 10:36:07 2009
New Revision: 734473
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=734473&view=rev
Log:
Make non-private static fields final
Note that the above breaks binary and sou
Mark Thomas wrote:
From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
I am OK pushing forward directly to 1.3, but given severity of these
issues and assuming we may drop 1.4 support, it may be best to push
out
a 1.2.3 to address them.
Personally, I am more interested in the 1.3 release th
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=137119&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Wed 14 Jan 2009 18:30:55 -0800
Finished at: Wed 14 Jan 2009 18:31:24 -0800
Total time: 28s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Nu
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:36 PM, wrote:
Author: sebb
Date: Wed Jan 14 10:36:07 2009
New Revision: 734473
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=734473&view=rev
Log:
Make non-private static fields final
Note that the above breaks binary and source compatibility. Therefor
The M2 build runs 23 sets of tests, whereas the M1 build only runs 21
sets; missing are
org.apache.commons.dbcp.datasources.TestKeyedCPDSConnectionFactory
and
org.apache.commons.dbcp.TestPStmtPooling
I've added these to project.xml.
However, it seems to me that it would be far better to include
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
>>
>> Is the intention to improve DBCP or just get it to compile and run
>> under 1.6?
>
> Short term (ie this week before I go on holiday) is to get DBCP building on
> 1.6 and enable the Gump folks to swit
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 14 January 2009 01:38
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [DBCP] Moving towards a 1.3 release
>>
>> On the issue of not building with JD
On 14/01/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >> From: Rahul Akolkar [mailto:rahul.akol...@gmail.com]
> >
> >
> >
> >> The Maven POMs may need to be updated as needed (a quick visual
> >> inspection seems to reveal that the m1 POM specifies the
Hello.
> > > The standard term in mathematical software is solver for the object that
> > > does it, solve for the method it does and root or result for the final
> > > output.
In my opinion, "rootfinders" and "minimumfinders" are clearer; hence the
suggestion "root" and "minimum" for a short but
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> From: contin...@vmbuild.apache.org [mailto:contin...@apache.org]
>> Sent: 14 January 2009 22:30
>> To: dev@commons.apache.org
>> Subject: [continuum] BUILD FAILURE: Commons - Commons DBCP -
>
> I'd like to fix whatever is causing this but when
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> From: Rahul Akolkar [mailto:rahul.akol...@gmail.com]
>
>
>
>> The Maven POMs may need to be updated as needed (a quick visual
>> inspection seems to reveal that the m1 POM specifies these
>> dependencies, but the m2 one doesn't). As [dbcp] ge
> From: contin...@vmbuild.apache.org [mailto:contin...@apache.org]
> Sent: 14 January 2009 22:30
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: [continuum] BUILD FAILURE: Commons - Commons DBCP -
I'd like to fix whatever is causing this but when I try an look at the
continuum server I get either "Project
Actually, not quite. I think minimizers or minimization are good for that
package, minimum is not.
Likewise, solvers for the package, but not root.
A minimum or a root is something you find, not software.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Ted Dunning a écrit :
> > The sta
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=136981&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Wed 14 Jan 2009 14:29:38 -0800
Finished at: Wed 14 Jan 2009 14:29:56 -0800
Total time: 17s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Nu
Ted Dunning a écrit :
> The standard term in mathematical software is solver for the object that
> does it, solve for the method it does and root or result for the final
> output.
Thanks for the hint, Ted.
Hence I guess for the package name, "solvers", "solving", "root"/"roots"
are all acceptable.
> From: Rahul Akolkar [mailto:rahul.akol...@gmail.com]
> The Maven POMs may need to be updated as needed (a quick visual
> inspection seems to reveal that the m1 POM specifies these
> dependencies, but the m2 one doesn't). As [dbcp] gets closer to a
> release, a call will have to be made about w
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM, wrote:
> Author: markt
> Date: Wed Jan 14 10:42:55 2009
> New Revision: 734477
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=734477&view=rev
> Log:
> Add the missing JTA deps.
> This works for Ant. I am assuming maven figures this out for itself.
>
The Maven POMs ma
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:36 PM, wrote:
> Author: sebb
> Date: Wed Jan 14 10:36:07 2009
> New Revision: 734473
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=734473&view=rev
> Log:
> Make non-private static fields final
Note that the above breaks binary and source compatibility. Therefore,
at the le
The standard term in mathematical software is solver for the object that
does it, solve for the method it does and root or result for the final
output.
(and I am a native English speaker)
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> > I think that "root" is clearer (e.g. for a new us
Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> Hi.
>
>> The first step would be to rearrange slightly the analysis package. We
>> could have the main interfaces in the analysis package
>> (UnivariateRealFunction, DifferentiableUnivariateRealFunction ...) and
>> spread the other interfaces and classes in several subp
Hi Siegfried,
Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> the last release of commons-email had issues regarding HtmlEmails and
>> I'm in the process to fix that. The challenge is that I need to test
>> with a lot of mail clients on various platforms which is q
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=136742&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Wed 14 Jan 2009 09:47:33 -0800
Finished at: Wed 14 Jan 2009 09:47:47 -0800
Total time: 14s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Number
FYI
Original Message
Subject:Re: [EXEC] test error
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:23:49 +0100
From: Siegfried Goeschl
Reply-To: sgoes...@gmx.at
To: sebb
References: <25aac9fc0901131544i7aa1e3a3x4221a845e3e...@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Sebastian,
I know - I'm c
> From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
>
> Is the intention to improve DBCP or just get it to compile and run
> under 1.6?
Short term (ie this week before I go on holiday) is to get DBCP building on
1.6 and enable the Gump folks to switch to a 1.6 JDK. This will a) let
Tomcat 5/6 build with a 1.6
> -Original Message-
> From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 14 January 2009 14:31
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r734396 - in
> /commons/proper/dbcp/trunk/src/java/org/apache/commons/dbcp:
> BasicDataSource.java PoolingDataSource.java
> datasources/Instance
On 14/01/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 13/01/2009, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> > > From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
> >
> > >
> > > Looks like some of the changes to the JDBC API mean that it is not
> > > possible to create a single version of DBCP which is compatible with
> > > both Java 1.4 and
On 14/01/2009, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > From: ma...@apache.org [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
> > Log:
> > Add build flags to new JDBC 4 methods that use generics
>
> With this commit:
> - DBCP builds and all tests pass on a 1.6 JDK
> - DBCP builds and all tests pass on a 1.5 JDK (with source=1.4)
>
> From: ma...@apache.org [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
> Log:
> Add build flags to new JDBC 4 methods that use generics
With this commit:
- DBCP builds and all tests pass on a 1.6 JDK
- DBCP builds and all tests pass on a 1.5 JDK (with source=1.4)
- DBCP builds on a 1.4 JDK
I can't run the tests very
On 13/01/2009, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
>
> >
> > Looks like some of the changes to the JDBC API mean that it is not
> > possible to create a single version of DBCP which is compatible with
> > both Java 1.4 and 1.6.
> >
> > Will that mean moving DBCP to a m
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 09:30 +, Russel Winder wrote:
> > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLI-170 is something I'd like
> > to get in. I've attached a patch for people's opinions and put in 1.2
> > for now.
>
> I have pulled the commits and will build and trial Groovy with this to
> see
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 22:21 -0800, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Definitely not offended - just 6 miles under with work :) Plus Apache
> stuff - I've been putting time into Jakarta Taglibs (resurrecting lots
> of old code there), admining the JIRA a bit and getting Apache Attic
> up and running.
Sounds
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
>
> I am OK pushing forward directly to 1.3, but given severity of these
> issues and assuming we may drop 1.4 support, it may be best to push
> out
> a 1.2.3 to address them.
Personally, I am more interested in the 1.3 release than any further 1
> -Original Message-
> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 14 January 2009 01:38
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [DBCP] Moving towards a 1.3 release
>
> On the issue of not building with JDBC 4.0 / 1.6 JDK (DBCP-191) and
> creating a compatible rel
33 matches
Mail list logo
