[general] Apache + Meritocracy [Was: [logging] logging vs slf4j]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote: > * On the ASF model > > In a nutshell, while the ASF is a great organization in many ways, it > is not a meritocracy mainly because merit is not measured at all and > at the project level no responsiblity is accrued on merit beyond > committersh

[continuum] BUILD FAILURE: Apache Commons - Commons Lang - Default Maven 2 Build Definition (Java 1.5)

Online report : http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=11143&projectId=95 Build statistics: State: Failed Previous State: Failed Started at: Wed 10 Aug 2011 05:23:26 + Finished at: Wed 10 Aug 2011 05:24:15 + Total time: 48s Build Trigger: Schedule Bui

Re: [RESULT] Release Commons Lang 3.0.1 [Based on RC2]

Site ready: http://people.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang3-3.0.1-RC2/site/ Saw some minor improvements to my build script (namely next time I'll just show a bundle jar instead of a maven directory for voting). Two other obvious scripts are: 1) Deploying the code to various locations. 2) Upd

Re: [compress] Need API Feedback/Advice for ZipArchiveOutputStream ans ZIP64

On 2011-08-09, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 8/8/11 11:29 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> On 2011-08-08, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> As a test of whether or not it will work, I would recommend writing >>> the javadoc and test cases first (which of course we all do any way ;) >> Javadocs are there now with svn

[continuum] BUILD FAILURE: Apache Commons - Commons Lang - Default Maven 2 Build Definition (Java 1.5)

Online report : http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=11141&projectId=95 Build statistics: State: Failed Previous State: Failed Started at: Wed 10 Aug 2011 04:21:32 + Finished at: Wed 10 Aug 2011 04:22:13 + Total time: 40s Build Trigger: Schedule Bui

Re: [RESULT] Release Commons Lang 3.0.1 [Based on RC2]

Noting that the distribution and maven bundle have been uploaded and are now awaiting sync. I'll give that a day and then deploy the site tomorrow night. Hen On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > Thanks all for voting. 5 +1s, including my implicit +1. > > I'll get to work on pus

[RESULT] Release Commons Lang 3.0.1 [Based on RC2]

Thanks all for voting. 5 +1s, including my implicit +1. I'll get to work on pushing the releases out. Hen On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > Second try for 3.0.1 :) > > Three changes - fixed version for the archive files, proper fix to > LANG-727 and missing javadoc impleme

Re: [math] Testing for convergence in iterative algorithms

> > The tricky bit here is a) how to encapsulate state in a generic way > that has enough substance to it to be actually useful and b) > similarly how to do the same for convergence.  I am probably too > influenced by the topological connotation of the latter term which > makes it seem basically di

Re: [math] Re: Release managing a major version [and Lang 3.0 post mortem]

Heh - s/criticism/encouragement :) On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote: > Yes, criticism well made. However, in solving the voting problem, the fewer > the voters and the fewer the choices, the quicker that a solution can be > determined. The worry is that 1000 people pull in

Re: [math] Re: Release managing a major version [and Lang 3.0 post mortem]

Yes, criticism well made. However, in solving the voting problem, the fewer the voters and the fewer the choices, the quicker that a solution can be determined. The worry is that 1000 people pull in 1000 directions, as opposed to 10 people pulling in 6 directions. ;-) On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:07

Re: [math] Re: Release managing a major version [and Lang 3.0 post mortem]

Btw (aimed to Greg and anyone else) - never feel that the committers would be best to put it together. I've gotten Open Source projects out the door without being a committer simply by listing the things I/they thought they should work on on a wiki. It's a bit more of a pain without access to defin

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Lang 3.0.1 [Based on RC2]

Absolutely :) On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > +1. > > Nits are OK by me. > > We have 3.0.2 around the corner anyway, right :) > > Gary > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: >> Second try for 3.0.1 :) >> >> Three changes - fixed version for the archive fil

Re: [math] Monitoring iterative algorithms

I was not aware that someone has codified this. The "Rules for Revolutionaries" is very very good. There is an elegant order out of disorder theme that permeates it. Thank you. -Greg On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 09/08/2011 18:50, Greg Sterijevski wrote: > > I think y

Re: [lang] Adding a Memoizer class

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Good news! :) Well... I am having second thoughts now baed on Tim's reply: On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Tim Peierls wrote: > Probably not a good idea to use Memoizer unchanged from the book, though. > See Guava's MapMaker for ideas abou

Re: [math] Re: Release managing a major version [and Lang 3.0 post mortem]

Thanks for the nudge. I'll bite. Of course anyone is welcome to browse the open JIRA issues with 3.0 as fix version and add comments :) Phil On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote: > Does anyone have a list of showstopper bugs and features. If we want a 3.0 > release soon, then

Re: [math] Re: Release managing a major version [and Lang 3.0 post mortem]

Probably more my own mistake than yours. :) Regards, Matt On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote: > My bad! This was indeed for math commons... > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Matt Benson wrote: >> >> 3.0 came out a couple of weeks ago.  :)  3.0.1 is on the way now. >> >> M

Re: [math] Re: Release managing a major version [and Lang 3.0 post mortem]

My bad! This was indeed for math commons... On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > 3.0 came out a couple of weeks ago. :) 3.0.1 is on the way now. > > Matt > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Greg Sterijevski > wrote: > > Does anyone have a list of showstopper bugs and features.

Re: [lang] Adding a Memoizer class

Good news! :) http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > We are good! I asked Brian, one of the authors and the code is in the > public domain: > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Brian Goetz wrote: >> No license issu

Re: [math] Re: Release managing a major version [and Lang 3.0 post mortem]

3.0 came out a couple of weeks ago. :) 3.0.1 is on the way now. Matt On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote: > Does anyone have a list of showstopper bugs and features. If we want a 3.0 > release soon, then perhaps some kind of a prioritized list would help us in > the communit

Re: [math] Re: Release managing a major version [and Lang 3.0 post mortem]

Does anyone have a list of showstopper bugs and features. If we want a 3.0 release soon, then perhaps some kind of a prioritized list would help us in the community concentrate some of our efforts? I was thinking that the individuals with commit privileges could put this together since they are pro

Re: [lang] Adding a Memoizer class

We are good! I asked Brian, one of the authors and the code is in the public domain: On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Brian Goetz wrote: > No license issues -- the code is in the public domain: > >Written by Brian Goetz and Tim Peierls with assistance from members of >JCP JSR-166 Expert Gr

Re: [lang] Adding a Memoizer class

On Aug 9, 2011, at 16:28, Oliver Heger wrote: > Am 09.08.2011 20:57, schrieb Gary Gregory: >> Hello All, >> >> I am currently using a class like the Memoizer class [1] from "Java >> Concurrency in Practice" [2], a great book. >> >> It would fit perfectly in org.apache.commons.lang3.concurrent. >>

Re: [lang] Adding a Memoizer class

Am 09.08.2011 20:57, schrieb Gary Gregory: Hello All, I am currently using a class like the Memoizer class [1] from "Java Concurrency in Practice" [2], a great book. It would fit perfectly in org.apache.commons.lang3.concurrent. Any thoughts for or against? +1, this would be a nice addition

Re: [lang] Adding a Memoizer class

Hi Gary, even if I'm not active on Lang, I'm very +1 for introducing this feature, looks a great addition!!! Have a nice day, all the best! Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hello All, > > I am currently u

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Lang 3.0.1 [Based on RC2]

Henri Yandell wrote: > Second try for 3.0.1 :) > > Three changes - fixed version for the archive files, proper fix to > LANG-727 and missing javadoc implemented. > > RC2 is available here: > > http://people.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang3-3.0.1-RC2/ > > SVN: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos

[math] Rename operator methods of RealVector

Hi, I think some method names that represent operators are wrong, at least inconsistent by naming and/or by implementation. I opend an issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-643 Comming from matlab/octave the octave operator .+ is specified ad element-by-element addition. http://ww

[lang] Adding a Memoizer class

Hello All, I am currently using a class like the Memoizer class [1] from "Java Concurrency in Practice" [2], a great book. It would fit perfectly in org.apache.commons.lang3.concurrent. Any thoughts for or against? Thank you, Gary [1] http://jcip.net/listings/Memoizer.java [2] http://jcip.net

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

Hi all guys!!! sorry for joining so late the discussion (working on some stuff as bricklayer at home!!! didn't know it is fun!) * I don't understand why JULI should be so "complicated" to be adopted... if in trouble, please take a look at juli-to-log4j[1] bride written by our ASF mate Paul Smith

Re: [math] Monitoring iterative algorithms

In that case, I'm quite happy to test one of the options which have been suggested within the framework of linear solvers. I could for example try and implement the Obervable/Observer option, and see how it goes. Sébastien 2011/8/9 Mark Thomas : > On 09/08/2011 18:50, Greg Sterijevski wrote: >> I

Re: [math] Monitoring iterative algorithms

On 09/08/2011 18:50, Greg Sterijevski wrote: > I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment: > > "... but also the time to > experiment. Only the latter will be able to tell if the design is good. > And this must take time so that all the potential pitfalls can be ..." > > Maybe this is

Re: [math] Monitoring iterative algorithms

This is a great idea. And it is something you can just do on github. On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Greg Sterijevski wrote: > Would it be possible to fork the trunk of the source tree to an > "experimental branch"? Whether its monitoring the progress of ODE solvers, > other solvers or any othe

Re: [math] Monitoring iterative algorithms

I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment: "... but also the time to experiment. Only the latter will be able to tell if the design is good. And this must take time so that all the potential pitfalls can be ..." Maybe this is chumming the water with more flotsam and jetsam, but a lot

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

On 09.08.2011 11:57, Christian Grobmeier wrote: Another option is to try to work with Ceki to address some of the concerns of the commons community with regards to using slf4j. * There is a hassle with too many jars for dependencies with slf4j. * Every time Ceki goes on vacation everything stops

Re: [math] Monitoring iterative algorithms

On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 05:46:47PM +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 09/08/2011 09:28, Phil Steitz a écrit : > >On 8/8/11 10:46 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote: > >>2011/8/8 Phil Steitz: > >>>+1 to the idea of using the Observer pattern; but -0 for > >>>Observable. I would favor defining Events and Lis

Re: [math] right way to throw IndexOutOfBoundsException?

Le 08/08/2011 23:43, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : [...] Cases such as this would fall in the "illegal argument" category. Thus: throw new OutOfRangeException(index, 0, parameters.length); or, to get a more detailed message, OutOfRangeException e = new OutOfRangeException(index, 0, parame

[continuum] BUILD FAILURE: Apache Commons - Commons Lang - Default Maven 2 Build Definition (Java 1.5)

Online report : http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=11123&projectId=95 Build statistics: State: Failed Previous State: Failed Started at: Tue 9 Aug 2011 16:23:18 + Finished at: Tue 9 Aug 2011 16:23:54 + Total time: 35s Build Trigger: Schedule Build

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Lang 3.0.1 [Based on RC2]

+1. Nits are OK by me. We have 3.0.2 around the corner anyway, right :) Gary On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > Second try for 3.0.1 :) > > Three changes - fixed version for the archive files, proper fix to > LANG-727 and missing javadoc implemented. > > RC2 is available he

Re: [compress] Need API Feedback/Advice for ZipArchiveOutputStream ans ZIP64

On 8/8/11 11:29 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2011-08-08, Phil Steitz wrote: > >> As a test of whether or not it will work, I would recommend writing >> the javadoc and test cases first (which of course we all do any way ;) > Javadocs are there now with svn rev 1155223, in particular >

Re: [math] Monitoring iterative algorithms

Le 09/08/2011 09:28, Phil Steitz a écrit : On 8/8/11 10:46 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote: 2011/8/8 Phil Steitz: +1 to the idea of using the Observer pattern; but -0 for Observable. I would favor defining Events and Listeners because a) Observable is concrete, so effectively forces you to create

Re: [math] Monitoring iterative algorithms

One approach that will minimize the burden on commons math developers is to point users to an AspectJ approach as is discussed here: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-aopwork6/index.html The article starts out with a discussion of how to implement the observer design pattern the

Re: [compress] Do we want formats without write support (Unix dump, maybe RAR)?

+1 But we should document the reason why carefully: - to reduce FAQs - in case the reason ever changes (e.g. change to licence) On 9 August 2011 08:24, Torsten Curdt wrote: >> Read only is ok to me. It would allow for conversion. > > +1 > > cheers, > Torsten > > -

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>> Another option is to try to work with Ceki to address some of the >>> concerns of the commons community with regards to using slf4j. >>> >>> * There is a hassle with too many jars for dependencies with slf4j. >>> * Every time Ceki goes

[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: [lang] where did org.apache.commons.lang.math.RandomUtils go?

On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:29:45AM +0200, David Karlsen wrote: > nextInt - but I can just roll my own. Maybe have a look at Commons Math. Best, Gilles - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional c

Re: [math] Monitoring iterative algorithms

> >> +1 to the idea of using the Observer pattern; but -0 for > >> Observable. I would favor defining Events and Listeners because a) > >> Observable is concrete, so effectively forces you to create an > >> Observable delegate > >> > > I'm not sure I understand. Components in java.awt also need to

Re: [logging] logging vs slf4j

>> Another option is to try to work with Ceki to address some of the >> concerns of the commons community with regards to using slf4j. >> >> * There is a hassle with too many jars for dependencies with slf4j. >> * Every time Ceki goes on vacation everything stops. >> * Some have a preference for Ap

Re: [lang] where did org.apache.commons.lang.math.RandomUtils go?

nextInt - but I can just roll my own. Thanks. 2011/8/8 Henri Yandell > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 7:18 AM, David Karlsen > wrote: > > Hi. > > > > org.apache.commons.lang.math.RandomUtils does not exist in lang3 and I > could > > not find anything in the migration guide. > > Are there any alternativ

Re: [math] Testing for convergence in iterative algorithms

On 8/8/11 10:41 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote: > 2011/8/8 Phil Steitz : >> Sounds reasonable. Have a look at the StoppingCondition interface >> and its implementations in the genetics package. Something like >> that would probably work. >> >> Phil >> > I wasn't aware of o.a.c.m.genetics.StoppingCon

Re: [math] Monitoring iterative algorithms

On 8/8/11 10:46 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote: > 2011/8/8 Phil Steitz : >> +1 to the idea of using the Observer pattern; but -0 for >> Observable. I would favor defining Events and Listeners because a) >> Observable is concrete, so effectively forces you to create an >> Observable delegate >> > I'm

Re: [compress] Do we want formats without write support (Unix dump, maybe RAR)?

> Read only is ok to me. It would allow for conversion. +1 cheers, Torsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org