On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> On 4 March 2011 17:15, sebb wrote:
>> On 4 March 2011 13:30, wrote:
>>> Log:
>>> Document mutability of UTC constant, which isn't ideal
>
>> AFAICT, it's not used within Lang3 - so why don't we just delete it ?
>>
>> Does it really off
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
> > Speaking of skins... IMO, this looks beautiful:
> http://directory.apache.org/
> >
> > What can't we do something like that?
>
> Well some of us are not capable! What we have is prac
Hello.
> [...]
> > So, what is the lesson from having this case? Is the whole method a
> > duplicate
> > that should be replace by a call to something in "linear"? Or is it a proof
> > that some exceptions might be appropriately used outside of "linear"?
>
> I think the method should be moved to
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Speaking of skins... IMO, this looks beautiful: http://directory.apache.org/
>
> What can't we do something like that?
Well some of us are not capable! What we have is practical and we
don't have to put any effort into. I wouldn't want to expe
Hi.
> Just want to throw another idea into the mix. How about stripping all the
> validation argument validation lines and putting in separate validator
> classes. Clients would call the validator on the arguments for the class
> before passing the arguments to the class's method. It makes t
On 2011-03-04 21:45, sebb wrote:
> On 4 March 2011 20:38, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> I don't see anything wrong on modifying directly the .vm template,
>> there's no need to apply any hack or waiting for a fix from the maven
>> team.
>> at the end of the day, we're implementing the *commons* skin an
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple: "a 2-tuple is called a
> > pair". Not necessarily authoritative, but amusing nevertheless.
> >
> > Another interesting concept mentioned
On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> * for the Ant built projects that depend on vfs (Ivy, log4j-chainsaw and
>> vfs2-sandbox) I'll make the 1.0 jar available.
> When all of them require normally the release, it's fine.
Ivy seems to build fine, the chainsaw build has
On 2011-03-04, Matt Benson wrote:
> Another interesting concept mentioned in this article is the
> summarized by the statement "Another way of formalizing tuples is as
> nested ordered pairs." I would argue that this is the only efficient
> way to formally represent an n-tuple using Java generics
On 4 March 2011 20:38, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> I don't see anything wrong on modifying directly the .vm template,
> there's no need to apply any hack or waiting for a fix from the maven
> team.
> at the end of the day, we're implementing the *commons* skin and every
> component site shall be confo
I don't see anything wrong on modifying directly the .vm template,
there's no need to apply any hack or waiting for a fix from the maven
team.
at the end of the day, we're implementing the *commons* skin and every
component site shall be conform to it according to our policy, or not?
So, I suggest
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
[SNIP]
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple: "a 2-tuple is called a
> pair". Not necessarily authoritative, but amusing nevertheless.
>
> Another interesting concept mentioned in this article is the
> summarized by the statement "Another wa
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Adrian Crum <
> adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 on the Association interface.
>>
>> The Tuple interface looks like a Collection, even more so when it expands
>> to more than two elements.
>>
>
On 4 March 2011 01:55, sebb wrote:
> On 4 March 2011 00:49, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:35 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 3 March 2011 23:42, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:13 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 26 February 2011 22:39, sebb wrote:
>> Commons-bui
On 3/3/11 5:51 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hi.
>
SingularMatrixException, NonSymmetricMatrixException and the likes are
really tightly bound to linear algebra and could be in the linear
package where they are triggered. They could appear in the signatures of
algorithms in other
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Adrian Crum <
adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
> +1 on the Association interface.
>
> The Tuple interface looks like a Collection, even more so when it expands
> to more than two elements.
>
Not quite, because you can only type a collection as Collection,
On 4 March 2011 18:45, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:29 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 4 March 2011 06:45, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> > Hi Gary/all
>> > I don't know if you're interested, but I realized time ago a light
>> > skin[1] that is already released under ASL2.0, here[2] you ca
+1 on the Association interface.
The Tuple interface looks like a Collection, even more so when it
expands to more than two elements.
-Adrian
On 3/4/2011 11:24 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Can we talk about the class name and use cases?
For me a pair evokes similarity: a pair of shoes, a pair of
On 3/4/11 10:47 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 04/03/2011 13:55, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>>> SingularMatrixException, NonSymmetricMatrixException and the likes are
>>> really tightly bound to linear algebra and could be in the linear
>>> package where they are triggered. They could app
Hi,
Just want to throw another idea into the mix. How about stripping all the
validation argument validation lines and putting in separate validator classes.
Clients would call the validator on the arguments for the class before passing
the arguments to the class's method. It makes the core
I've never been a fan of battleship gray as a color... :)
Gary
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi Gary/all
> I don't know if you're interested, but I realized time ago a light
> skin[1] that is already released under ASL2.0, here[2] you can find a
> sample, if you are int
Can we talk about the class name and use cases?
For me a pair evokes similarity: a pair of shoes, a pair of hands, a pair of
coordinates. You get the idea. Having a Pair.of(name, dog) reads like
nonsense to me. A Map.Entry.of(name, dog) I understand, same for an
Association.of(name, dog) (I cannot
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:29 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 4 March 2011 06:45, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> > Hi Gary/all
> > I don't know if you're interested, but I realized time ago a light
> > skin[1] that is already released under ASL2.0, here[2] you can find a
> > sample, if you are interested on it we
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> I now have authoristion from OpenGamma to discuss adding a Pair class
> to [lang] based on our internal classes. If necessary a CCLA can be
> signed, although since we are not necessarily importing the OpenGamma
> classes as is and I'd be
On 4 March 2011 17:31, wrote:
> Author: sebb
> Date: Fri Mar 4 17:31:27 2011
> New Revision: 1078064
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1078064&view=rev
> Log:
> Javadoc fix - duplicated line (looks like auto fix did not work)
>
There are also some problems in ArrayUtils and StringUtils
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
[SNIP]
> I want to change the release style of Lang - I want to release every
> couple of issues once we get Lang 3.0 out. Or every month. I want
> 3.0.68 to exist :) Missing the 3.0 date shouldn't be an issue at all
> unless it's a backwards c
On 4 March 2011 17:19, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> On 4 March 2011 17:15, sebb wrote:
>> On 4 March 2011 13:30, wrote:
>>> Log:
>>> Document mutability of UTC constant, which isn't ideal
>
>> AFAICT, it's not used within Lang3 - so why don't we just delete it ?
>>
>> Does it really offer much b
On 4 March 2011 17:15, sebb wrote:
> On 4 March 2011 13:30, wrote:
>> Log:
>> Document mutability of UTC constant, which isn't ideal
> AFAICT, it's not used within Lang3 - so why don't we just delete it ?
>
> Does it really offer much benefit, given the drawback of malicious or
> accidental cor
As there is no need to be public, I'm not fussed that they are int. An
enum just increase the jar file size for little benefit when you have
private values.
Stephen
On 4 March 2011 17:15, sebb wrote:
> On 4 March 2011 13:31, wrote:
>> Author: scolebourne
>> Date: Fri Mar 4 13:31:39 2011
>> New
On 4 March 2011 13:31, wrote:
> Author: scolebourne
> Date: Fri Mar 4 13:31:39 2011
> New Revision: 1077935
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1077935&view=rev
> Log:
> Make rounding mode constants private, as they are unused in public
Or they could be enums?
---
On 4 March 2011 13:30, wrote:
> Author: scolebourne
> Date: Fri Mar 4 13:30:35 2011
> New Revision: 1077934
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1077934&view=rev
> Log:
> Document mutability of UTC constant, which isn't ideal
>
> Modified:
>
> commons/proper/lang/trunk/src/main/java/org
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> I now have authoristion from OpenGamma to discuss adding a Pair class
> to [lang] based on our internal classes. If necessary a CCLA can be
> signed, although since we are not necessarily importing the OpenGamma
> classes as is and I'd be
Hi Stefan,
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>>> On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
Since gump messages came in: vfs-1 will not be updated anyway ...
>
>>> As in "vfs-1 is no longer under any kind of development"?
>
>> Yes.
>
>>
Not sure we can use it, because one of the files is GPL.
The skin is released under AL 2.0, but I'm not sure that is correct.
On 4 March 2011 16:05, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> sorry to had not clear, my bad, I didn't mean to use that skin
> directly, but import the css files, kind of donation, BTW i
On 4 March 2011 06:16, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Going through each.
>> ArrayUtils.hashCode() has been removed, but it had different
>> functionality to Arrays.hashCode wrt nested arrays.
DONE
>> I don't love the new Pair class.
New thread.
>> ArrayUtils.toArray() javadoc has example code that wo
sorry to had not clear, my bad, I didn't mean to use that skin
directly, but import the css files, kind of donation, BTW it's my skin
I don't have to ask nobody if we can or cannot use it :)
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM, seb
On 2011-03-04, Ralph Goers wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2011, at 1:44 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Actually the usage of net 2.2 would be better then, but Ralph should
>> agree in the current vfs stage.
> OK - if 2.2 is released then I have no problem in changing the
> dependency and changing whatever code
On 4 March 2011 08:26, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Yeah - as soon as I can find a few minutes and get over my frustration at
> having to manually generate release notes I'm going to try again.
I can help with that - I've worked on both NET and MATH so that
changes.xml can be used to easily generate the
Le 04/03/2011 13:55, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>> SingularMatrixException, NonSymmetricMatrixException and the likes are
>> really tightly bound to linear algebra and could be in the linear
>> package where they are triggered. They could appear in the signatures of
>> algorithms in
On 4 March 2011 06:45, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi Gary/all
> I don't know if you're interested, but I realized time ago a light
> skin[1] that is already released under ASL2.0, here[2] you can find a
> sample, if you are interested on it we could speak about moving it as
> new commons-skin...
We
On Mar 4, 2011, at 1:44 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> Actually the usage of net 2.2 would be better then, but Ralph should agree
> in the current vfs stage.
>
OK - if 2.2 is released then I have no problem in changing the dependency and
changing whatever code is impacted. I just don't want to
On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Since gump messages came in: vfs-1 will not be updated anyway ...
>> As in "vfs-1 is no longer under any kind of development"?
> Yes.
>> If so, we should probably remove it from Gump anyway.
Hi Stefan,
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Hi Jörg,
>
> On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Since gump messages came in: vfs-1 will not be updated anyway ...
>
> As in "vfs-1 is no longer under any kind of development"?
Yes.
> If so, we should probably remove it from Gump anyway.
Could be inte
> SingularMatrixException, NonSymmetricMatrixException and the likes are
> really tightly bound to linear algebra and could be in the linear
> package where they are triggered. They could appear in the signatures of
> algorithms in other package that do call linear algebra, but
I now have authoristion from OpenGamma to discuss adding a Pair class
to [lang] based on our internal classes. If necessary a CCLA can be
signed, although since we are not necessarily importing the OpenGamma
classes as is and I'd be writing code in [lang3] with my Apache hat
on, the CCLA might not
Hi Jörg,
On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Since gump messages came in: vfs-1 will not be updated anyway ...
As in "vfs-1 is no longer under any kind of development"? If so, we
should probably remove it from Gump anyway.
Stefan
-
Le 03/03/2011 23:51, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> Hi.
>
SingularMatrixException, NonSymmetricMatrixException and the likes are
really tightly bound to linear algebra and could be in the linear
package where they are triggered. They could appear in the signatures of
algorithms in
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 gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>>> the recent Gump failures occur because commons-net has removed a
>>> deprecated method that VFS uses. The recommended replacement of the
>>> method is not available in commons-net 2.0 (which trunk depen
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 gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-scxml-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
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 gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-vfs2 has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
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 gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-vfs has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue a
Hi Stefan,
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>>> the recent Gump failures occur because commons-net has removed a
>>> deprecated method that VFS uses. The recommended replacement of the
>>> method is not available in commons-net 2.0 (which
On 2011-03-04, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> the recent Gump failures occur because commons-net has removed a
>> deprecated method that VFS uses. The recommended replacement of the
>> method is not available in commons-net 2.0 (which trunk depends on) so
>> in order to adapt to
Yeah - as soon as I can find a few minutes and get over my frustration at
having to manually generate release notes I'm going to try again.
Ralph
On Mar 3, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the recent Gump failures occur because co
Le 04/03/2011 03:08, Gary Gregory a écrit :
Speaking of skins... IMO, this looks beautiful: http://directory.apache.org/
What can't we do something like that?
+1 !
A refreshed skin would be welcome.
Emmanuel Bourg
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Heh - pretty sure the 2.0/1.0 bit is me :)
Given I'd written a 1.0 impl first, I think I simply didn't want to
lose the code.
If you think there's value in both, then I'm all for it. I think at
the time I was implementing something fun and didn't know if 2.0 was a
replacement for 1.0 or not. I di
57 matches
Mail list logo
