+1
>From me as well.
Den 18/05/2011 22.22 skrev "Phil Steitz" :
> On 5/18/11 2:54 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 18/05/2011 11:49, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:03:59AM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Should I replac
On 5/18/11 9:36 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> The following rule seems unnecessary to me:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CommonsEtiquette#Commons_Etiquette
>
> "each committer who commits to a component must add their name to the
> STATUS file" (or pom.xml)
>
> I've never done this, have touched
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
I like the new dormancy suggestion, plus:
> I am OK with changing "revival" to require only
> one ASF committer.
and:
>> If someone goes and
>> keeps on working stuff ... well ... then that status is nullified by
>> merit. (not through a single commit though) I don't see a reason to
>> forbid sv
I think its unnecessary.
If you want to find out who did something, use svn. If a user needs to
get a responsible person - we all are somehow. The right person will
come out from the mailinglist.
Adding yourself is ok if you have done some portions, feel well with
the code and responsible for the
Logically - makes sense. Make 'em final.
Realistically - the finality of String and friends is an immense pain
and led us to ugly Utils classes and lots of non-OO style code.
I wonder if we can contain your BigDecimal logic in some way. My
initial thoughts though end up much like the Cloneable ma
*grumbles that they were ints and a previous RC candidate saw it
change to Range* :)
My bigger complaint is the explicit casting required to pass in chars:
new UnicodeEscaper(Range.between(0, (int)'E')) ?
Autoboxing doesn't seem to be able to turn a char into an Integer.
Hen
On Wed, May 18
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> On 18 May 2011 17:46, Matt Benson wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Gary Gregory
>> wrote:
>>> Why doesn't a Range does extend Pair? It's pretty clear (to me at least)
>>> that a range is a pair of values.
>>>
>>> Because th
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> I think the method (new to 3.0)
>>
>> FormatCache.getDateTimeInstance(Integer dateStyle, Integer timeStyle,
>> TimeZone timeZone, Locale locale)
>>
>> should be changed to use ints, as all the
The following rule seems unnecessary to me:
http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CommonsEtiquette#Commons_Etiquette
"each committer who commits to a component must add their name to the
STATUS file" (or pom.xml)
I've never done this, have touched every component (give or take a
component or two) and
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
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> IMO "domant" is just an indication of a status. If someone goes and
> keeps on working stuff ... well ... then that status is nullified by
> merit. (not through a single commit though) I don't see a reason to
> forbid svn access ...that's the
Hi Simone,
= %< ==
-public void putAll( Map t )
+public void putAll( Map t )
= %< ==
String is final, therefore nothing extends String ...
Cheers,
Jörg
-
To unsubscribe, e
On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 08:44:00PM +0200, Arne Ploese wrote:
>
> it would be handy to simply iterate over the elements of the vector...
Shall I open a JIRA ticket for this (i.e. modify interfaces "RealVector"
and "FieldVector" (so that they would extend "Iterable" and
"Iterable", respectively)?
On 5/18/11 2:54 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 18/05/2011 11:49, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:03:59AM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>> On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
Of course this should rea
I do not see why this entire project would need to go to 1.5 or 1.6, unless
Generics are
added to the core interface. The maven.compile.target property could be set on
the different
modules, so that the core interface is compiled for 1.4.2 and the JSR199 code
is compiled for 1.6.
On May 17, 20
On 5/18/11 10:48 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 5/17/11 3:21 PM, ma...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: markt
>> Date: Tue May 17 22:21:43 2011
>> New Revision: 1104601
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1104601&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Make Phil's suggested changes to (hopefully) fix issues when test
On 5/17/11 3:21 PM, ma...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: markt
> Date: Tue May 17 22:21:43 2011
> New Revision: 1104601
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1104601&view=rev
> Log:
> Make Phil's suggested changes to (hopefully) fix issues when testing with
> commons-performance
I have not rerun
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> On 18 May 2011 18:09, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> See the EvilFoo example above. Any ability to subclass, even with safe
>> methods, means its not completely thread-safe.
>
> More info:
>
> StringBuilder evilBuf = new StringBuilder();
On 18 May 2011 18:09, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> See the EvilFoo example above. Any ability to subclass, even with safe
> methods, means its not completely thread-safe.
More info:
StringBuilder evilBuf = new StringBuilder();
EvilFoo evilFoo = new EvilFoo(evilBuf);
doStuff(evilFoo);
// evilFoo
On 18 May 2011 17:58, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Stephen Colebourne
> wrote:
>> This issue about what immutable means wrt "final" on the class has
>> bounced around a few threads.
>>
>> In my view, immutable has a specific meaning, whereby the object is
>> unequivicall
Range is not a sub-type of pair. You can think of a pair as being an ordered
set of 2 items. A Range is a contiguous set defined by a lower and upper
bound (which may or may not be inclusive). Given some flag
Clusive=Inclusive|Exclusive, then every range is uniquely identified by a
single Pair>. Th
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> This issue about what immutable means wrt "final" on the class has
> bounced around a few threads.
>
> In my view, immutable has a specific meaning, whereby the object is
> unequivically safe to use and share between threads. To do so,
On 18 May 2011 17:46, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Why doesn't a Range does extend Pair? It's pretty clear (to me at least)
>> that a range is a pair of values.
>>
>> Because the Pair is in our tuple package, it means that it should follow
>> tuple
This issue about what immutable means wrt "final" on the class has
bounced around a few threads.
In my view, immutable has a specific meaning, whereby the object is
unequivically safe to use and share between threads. To do so, there
are certain rules. One that is disputed is whether the class mus
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Why doesn't a Range does extend Pair? It's pretty clear (to me at least)
> that a range is a pair of values.
>
> Because the Pair is in our tuple package, it means that it should follow
> tuple logic and be thought of as an ordered list of el
Why doesn't a Range does extend Pair? It's pretty clear (to me at least)
that a range is a pair of values.
Because the Pair is in our tuple package, it means that it should follow
tuple logic and be thought of as an ordered list of elements, in this case
two elements.
The methods that Range has t
Hey,
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> The bigger issue in my mind is why a Range does not extend Pair. It's pretty
> clear (to me at least) that a range is a pair of values.
Mathematically speaking a Range also has information about whether the
high and low bounds are inclu
On 18 May 2011 16:37, Gary Gregory wrote:
> The bigger issue in my mind is why a Range does not extend Pair. It's pretty
> clear (to me at least) that a range is a pair of values.
Please start a new thread for that issue.
AFAICT that would not help improve the performance of the Escaper
classes
In the same vein, we've agreed that Pair should not be final, and so if we
keep Range, is should not be final either.
Gary
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> The bigger issue in my mind is why a Range does not extend Pair. It's
> pretty clear (to me at least) that a range is
The bigger issue in my mind is why a Range does not extend Pair. It's pretty
clear (to me at least) that a range is a pair of values.
Because the Pair is in our tuple package, it means that it should follow
tuple logic and be an ordered list of elements, in this case two elements.
This means that
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM, sebb wrote:
> I think the method (new to 3.0)
>
> FormatCache.getDateTimeInstance(Integer dateStyle, Integer timeStyle,
> TimeZone timeZone, Locale locale)
>
> should be changed to use ints, as all the existing callers use ints.
>
> Furthermore, the parameters hav
I'm not happy with the boxing that is often needed to create a Range
of int or long, e.g. in StringEscapeUtils.
Seems to me that the UnicodeEscaper and NumericEntityEscaper classes
should require ints rather than a Range, as this would cut down on the
boxing and unboxing that is currently needed,
I think the method (new to 3.0)
FormatCache.getDateTimeInstance(Integer dateStyle, Integer timeStyle,
TimeZone timeZone, Locale locale)
should be changed to use ints, as all the existing callers use ints.
Furthermore, the parameters have to be unboxed in order to pass them
to DateFormat, so the
Le 18/05/2011 12:52, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:18:22AM +0100, sebb wrote:
On 18 May 2011 10:48, wrote:
Author: luc
Date: Wed May 18 09:48:24 2011
New Revision: 1124151
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1124151&view=rev
Log:
improved javadoc for FastMath.
+1, v
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:18:22AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 18 May 2011 10:48, wrote:
> > Author: luc
> > Date: Wed May 18 09:48:24 2011
> > New Revision: 1124151
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1124151&view=rev
> > Log:
> > improved javadoc for FastMath.
>
> +1, very clear and help
On 18 May 2011 10:48, wrote:
> Author: luc
> Date: Wed May 18 09:48:24 2011
> New Revision: 1124151
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1124151&view=rev
> Log:
> improved javadoc for FastMath.
+1, very clear and helpful.
2011/5/18 Stephen Colebourne :
> On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
>>
>> Of course this should read: one_d, two_d and three_d ...
>
> In the variety of Java source I've seen, multiple words are scrunched
> together, giving oned, twod, t
2011/5/18 sebb
> On 18 May 2011 08:31, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> > 2011/5/17 Henri Yandell
> >
> >> Looks useful to me.
> >>
> >> Download the ant task. Use this standard file. Execute.
> >>
> >> Save us maintaining a pointless build.xml.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think we need it at all. Don't you
Le 18/05/2011 11:49, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:03:59AM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
Of course this should read: one_d, two_d and three_d ...
Because it is easier to re
Or simply a 3.2.2?
Gary
On May 18, 2011, at 2:49, Henri Yandell wrote:
> 4.0 isn't looking like it'll be released anytime soon.
>
> Maybe the pre-4.0 branch should be taken and a 3.3 released; this is
> the gazillionth (okay, 4th?) time this one has been reported.
>
> Hen
>
> On Tue, May 17, 20
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:03:59AM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> >> Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
> >
> > Of course this should read: one_d, two_d and three_d ...
Because it is easier to read, I would go for this one if it weren
On 18 May 2011 08:31, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> 2011/5/17 Henri Yandell
>
>> Looks useful to me.
>>
>> Download the ant task. Use this standard file. Execute.
>>
>> Save us maintaining a pointless build.xml.
>>
>
> I don't think we need it at all. Don't you think that developers are able to
> dow
On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
>
> Of course this should read: one_d, two_d and three_d ...
In the variety of Java source I've seen, multiple words are scrunched
together, giving oned, twod, threed.
Stephen
+1 for dropping the old way of build
REgards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additio
Le 18/05/2011 09:58, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
Le 18/05/2011 01:19, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
[...]
The current layout in [math] is one o.a.c.math.geometry package with
6 3D specif classes. The current layout in [bsp] is one
o.a.c.bsp.partitioning package that is dimension-independent, one
o.a.c.b
Le 18/05/2011 01:19, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
[...]
The current layout in [math] is one o.a.c.math.geometry package with
6 3D specif classes. The current layout in [bsp] is one
o.a.c.bsp.partitioning package that is dimension-independent, one
o.a.c.bsp.utility package, three dimension-specific e
2011/5/17 Henri Yandell
> Looks useful to me.
>
> Download the ant task. Use this standard file. Execute.
>
> Save us maintaining a pointless build.xml.
>
I don't think we need it at all. Don't you think that developers are able to
download Maven like they did for Ant?
I think that presuming tha
48 matches
Mail list logo
