Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

2011/8/4 Ralph Goers > The flaw would be in JBoss Portal, not the portlet spec. The spec doesn't > have anything to do with logging. > In fact I would have said "a library in general" that is referenced both in the portal application and in portlets. Anyway you're right, if JBPortal would have s

[math] Implementation of Conjugate Gradient (MATH-581)

Hi, please review a proposal for the definition of general iterative linear solvers, as well as the implementation of the conjugate gradient method. This is file MATH-581-06.zip attached to the JIRA MATH-581 ticket. Thanks for your comments! Actually, I *do* have a comment. For the time being, new

Re: [compress] XZ support and inconsistencies in the existing compressors

Hi Lasse and welcome On 2011-08-03, Lasse Collin wrote: > I have been working on XZ data compression implementation in Java > . I was told that it could be nice > to get XZ support into Commons Compress. Sounds interesting. > I looked at the APIs and code in Com

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

The flaw would be in JBoss Portal, not the portlet spec. The spec doesn't have anything to do with logging. Ralph On Aug 3, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote: > 2011/8/3 Antonio Petrelli > >> However in my experience SLF4J has a big drawback: when used in a shared >> classloader (JBos

Re: [JCS] Long standing update: Switched to JDK 5 and Maven 2

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Thomas Vandahl wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I finished the updates to JDK 5 generics and concurrent and updated the >> maven-2 build. Still some tests fail, others should never have passed. I >> would like to as

Re: Nexus vs rsync-repository releases

On 8/3/11 2:14 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 8/3/11 1:37 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 8/2/11 5:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote

Re: Nexus vs rsync-repository releases

On 8/3/11 1:37 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> On 8/2/11 5:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Are we still going to deploy Maven a

Re: Nexus vs rsync-repository releases

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 8/2/11 5:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Are we still going to deploy Maven artifacts by SCPing to m2-ibiblio-rsync-repo

Re: [compress] XZ support and inconsistencies in the existing compressors

Hi Lasse! I'd personally like if you could fill an Issue on Jira and submit your XZ implementation as a patch that naturally fits in the org.apache.commons.compress package and you continue contributing on maintaining it - maybe depending on an external package would be more difficult since commons

Re: Nexus vs rsync-repository releases

Am 03.08.2011 07:32, schrieb Henri Yandell: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 8/2/11 5:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Are we still going to deploy Maven artifacts by SCPing to m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository on people.apache.

[compress] XZ support and inconsistencies in the existing compressors

Hi! I have been working on XZ data compression implementation in Java . I was told that it could be nice to get XZ support into Commons Compress. I looked at the APIs and code in Commons Compress to see how XZ support could be added. I was especially looking for d

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

2011/8/3 Antonio Petrelli > However in my experience SLF4J has a big drawback: when used in a shared > classloader (JBoss Portal anyone?) it is needed to have the same stinky old > version of SLF4J in all applications during compile time, and the library > should be excluded from the package. >

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Hi Ceki 2011/8/3 Ceki Gülcü > Antonio Petrelli wrote: > On the other hand, the version of slf4j binding that you select at > runtime needs to match the slf4j-api. For example, if you have > slf4j-api-1.6.1.jar on your classpath and you wish to use log4j, then > you need slf4j-log4j12-1.6.1.jar o

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Antonio Petrelli wrote: > However in my experience SLF4J has a big drawback: when used in a > shared classloader (JBoss Portal anyone?) it is needed to have the > same stinky old version of SLF4J in all applications during compile > time, and the library should be excluded from the package. Hell

Re: Nexus vs rsync-repository releases

On 8/3/11 9:09 AM, sebb wrote: > On 3 August 2011 09:13, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> >>> I am also worried about a closed tool like Nexus being used to publish >>> Apache stuff. >> That discussion was made years ago, when Nexus was introduced.

Re: [math] Improving tests and performance of RandomGenerator implementations

Le 03/08/2011 18:15, Phil Steitz a écrit : On 8/3/11 9:02 AM, sebb wrote: On 3 August 2011 09:06, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Le 03/08/2011 09:38, Luc Maisonobe a écrit : Le 01/08/2011 22:40, Luc Maisonobe a écrit : Hi Phil, Le 01/08/2011 20:39, Phil Steitz a écrit : On 8/1/11 1:31 AM, luc.maison

Re: [math] Improving tests and performance of RandomGenerator implementations

On 8/3/11 9:02 AM, sebb wrote: > On 3 August 2011 09:06, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> Le 03/08/2011 09:38, Luc Maisonobe a écrit : >>> Le 01/08/2011 22:40, Luc Maisonobe a écrit : Hi Phil, Le 01/08/2011 20:39, Phil Steitz a écrit : > On 8/1/11 1:31 AM, luc.maison...@free.fr wrote: >>

Re: Nexus vs rsync-repository releases

On 3 August 2011 09:13, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > >> I am also worried about a closed tool like Nexus being used to publish >> Apache stuff. > > That discussion was made years ago, when Nexus was introduced. And, > for the record, I strongly o

Re: [math] Improving tests and performance of RandomGenerator implementations

On 3 August 2011 09:06, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 03/08/2011 09:38, Luc Maisonobe a écrit : >> >> Le 01/08/2011 22:40, Luc Maisonobe a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> Le 01/08/2011 20:39, Phil Steitz a écrit : On 8/1/11 1:31 AM, luc.maison...@free.fr wrote: > > Hi Phil, > >>

Re: [collections] 4.0 release path

I think that a key mistake was trying to do both generics and refactoring. I'd suggest that quite a few users would simply like a generified [collections] 3.5 that is fully backwards compatible (as the JDK was) and with no refactoring. Now, some of the API cannot be generified correctly, so for a

Re: [collections] 4.0 release path

Thanks all for the feedbacks!!! I think that having generics (already done for what I can see) plus COLLECTIONS-310/351/372/377 + checking all issues where requesting generics would be reasonable to publish the 4.0 release. I don't know if someone already has a complete list of COLLECTIONS-310 rel

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Paul, > BTW, in terms of swelling community development, if LOG4J+JCL were to > merge and just become JCL2, it could have the visibility of all > Commons committers. Isn't it much more of a common component than a > separate project? I think the logging project is dysfunctional anyway > -- make it

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

First of all, sorry to jump in at this point of the discussion. 2011/7/28 Simone Tripodi > Hi all guys, > I remember I raw a thread - not sure if I did it here at commons or > somewhere else here at apache - where specified we prefer adding > [logging] as components dependency instead of slf4j..

Re: [collections] 4.0 release path

Or do a pure generics release as 3.5 to satisfy that need... which allows 4.0 to have generics plus the benefit of major refactoring if necessary (could also be called 4.0 and 5.0). On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Matt Benson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: >> The mo

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > I like Log4J just fine thank you very much :) > > I'm looking forward to 2.0. > > Gary > I concur with Gary. All my apps use LOG4J, not JCL or SLF4J. My dependencies do, however, but LOG4J works great minus a few enhancements I'd like to see

Re: [collections] 4.0 release path

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > The most important theme IMO is generics. That's what has come up at > work recently in fact. Everything else except showstopper bugs can > wait IMO. Indeed, this seems to resonate with Hen's recent treatise on (paraphrased) why the hell we ta

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > I prefer Apache driven projects when possible. If LOG4J2 takes off, > feature requests would be implemented quicker, I hope. I like Log4J just fine thank you very much :) I'm looking forward to 2.0. Gary > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Re: [LANG] Proposing 3.0.1

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Hen, > > Henri Yandell wrote: > >> I'd like to release 3.0.1 of Lang. > > Do we have any policies regarding Serializable types? I'd like to make > StrMatcher, StrLookup and StrSubstitutor serializable. One step further to a > serializable

Re: [collections] 4.0 release path

The most important theme IMO is generics. That's what has come up at work recently in fact. Everything else except showstopper bugs can wait IMO. Gary On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Hi all guys, > I'm (re)starting having a good slot of spare time, I volunteered to > help

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

I prefer Apache driven projects when possible. If LOG4J2 takes off, feature requests would be implemented quicker, I hope. On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:07 AM, David Karlsen wrote: > >> Hasn't the time for both CL and log4j passed by? The trend nowada

Re: Nexus vs rsync-repository releases

On Aug 2, 2011, at 11:45 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > I am also worried about a closed tool like Nexus being used to publish Apache > stuff. > Nexus is not completely closed. There is a community version that contains 90% of the functionality. That said, I really don't want to go look at the so

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:07 AM, David Karlsen wrote: > Hasn't the time for both CL and log4j passed by? The trend nowadays seems to > be slf4j/logback. If you read further back in this thread you will see where I highlighted the problems in Logback as well as difficulties with SLF4J. Plus, every ti

Re: [LANG] Proposing 3.0.1

Hi Hen, Henri Yandell wrote: > I'd like to release 3.0.1 of Lang. Do we have any policies regarding Serializable types? I'd like to make StrMatcher, StrLookup and StrSubstitutor serializable. One step further to a serializable Configuration. Cheers, Jörg ---

[collections] 4.0 release path

Hi all guys, I'm (re)starting having a good slot of spare time, I volunteered to help Matt on finalizing the [collections] release, but after had a look at the open issues I think we should agree on what including and what not. Does anyone already have a good overview/idea of collections roadmap? M

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Hasn't the time for both CL and log4j passed by? The trend nowadays seems to be slf4j/logback. Den 3. aug. 2011 15:03 skrev "Gary Gregory" følgende: > Or maybe Log4j 2 could replace [logging]. > > Gary > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: >> My thought is that there might

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Or maybe Log4j 2 could replace [logging]. Gary On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > My thought is that there might be some java.util.logging helpers that > could be written, and perhaps they might go in [lang] if there are 5 > or fewer classes. > > I assume that slf4j and

[GUMP@vmgump]: Project commons-proxy-test (in module apache-commons) failed

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

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

My thought is that there might be some java.util.logging helpers that could be written, and perhaps they might go in [lang] if there are 5 or fewer classes. I assume that slf4j and log4j have their own j.u.logging connections, so that end is dealt with. The time of [logging] has probably passed.

Re: Nexus vs rsync-repository releases

On 03/08/2011 06:36, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > >> What benefits do we get by using Nexus > > A real lot of work saved. (Beleave me. I've been RM for the same > projects with and without Nexus and it's really a difference.) I fail to see why th

Re: [GUMP@vmgump]: Project jakarta-turbine-jcs (in module apache-commons) failed

On 01.08.11 09:08, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > I've added a dependency on velocity-tools-view to the Gump descriptor > which may or may not fix the problem (velocity-tools-view currently > doesn't build itself in Gump and unless I managed to fix that as well, > JCS will simply not be built at all). Th

Re: Nexus vs rsync-repository releases

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > I am also worried about a closed tool like Nexus being used to publish > Apache stuff. That discussion was made years ago, when Nexus was introduced. And, for the record, I strongly opposed Nexus at that time in favour of other solutions, in

Re: [math] Improving tests and performance of RandomGenerator implementations

Le 03/08/2011 09:38, Luc Maisonobe a écrit : Le 01/08/2011 22:40, Luc Maisonobe a écrit : Hi Phil, Le 01/08/2011 20:39, Phil Steitz a écrit : On 8/1/11 1:31 AM, luc.maison...@free.fr wrote: Hi Phil, - Mail original - In my own applications, I noticed what appears to be poor performa

Re: [math] Improving tests and performance of RandomGenerator implementations

Le 01/08/2011 22:40, Luc Maisonobe a écrit : Hi Phil, Le 01/08/2011 20:39, Phil Steitz a écrit : On 8/1/11 1:31 AM, luc.maison...@free.fr wrote: Hi Phil, - Mail original - In my own applications, I noticed what appears to be poor performance in the nextInt(int) method of the Mersenne

Re: Nexus vs rsync-repository releases

> > I am also worried about a closed tool like Nexus being used to publish > Apache stuff. > > Luc > This is curious, indeed. I always wondered why we use Nexus instead of "eating our own dog food" Apache Archiva[1], but worried to receive a reply "why didn't you RTFM on http://xyz..."; :P Have a