actually last() would probably be more useful. I still don't see the need
for first() when next() will suffice, unless first() is changing the return
value when there is no first().
As clarification what happens if I call:
Iterator iterator = Arrays.asList( "a","b" ).iterator();
x = IteratorUtil
Tangent: It just occurred to me that this could have helped in the process
of developing this plugin:
https://github.com/ok2c/httpcomponents-release-tools/wiki
Gary
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Rob Tompkins wrote:
> I had that quickly set up by adding
>
> ${dryRun}
>
> to the plugin configu
I had that quickly set up by adding
${dryRun}
to the plugin configuration, but I admit that’s a bit of a hack. I was just
trying to be speedy in the first version of the plugin for folks’ benefit.
> On Jan 11, 2018, at 7:25 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 11 January 2018 at 14:42, Rob Tompkins wro
On 12 January 2018 at 00:51, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 5:23 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 11 January 2018 at 15:22, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Some APIs, either due to age or design, deal out an Iterator and nothing
>> > else. And sometimes, all I care about (in tests,
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 5:23 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 January 2018 at 15:22, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some APIs, either due to age or design, deal out an Iterator and nothing
> > else. And sometimes, all I care about (in tests, for example, or if the
> > list is a set of aliases) is th
On 11 January 2018 at 14:42, Rob Tompkins wrote:
> If you do try to run it locally make sure you add
> true
It would be useful to be able to define this on the command-line.
> To the configuration section of the plugin.
>
>> On Jan 11, 2018, at 3:58 AM, Jörg Schaible
>> wrote:
>>
>> Am Wed, 10
On 11 January 2018 at 15:22, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some APIs, either due to age or design, deal out an Iterator and nothing
> else. And sometimes, all I care about (in tests, for example, or if the
> list is a set of aliases) is the first object.
>
> The method IteratorUtils.first(Iterator
for test cases I tend to use iterator.next() to get the first item. It
will fail spetacularly if the iterator has no next() and if it does you
have first(). No need for extra functions.
Claude
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some APIs, either due to age or desig
Hi,
Some APIs, either due to age or design, deal out an Iterator and nothing
else. And sometimes, all I care about (in tests, for example, or if the
list is a set of aliases) is the first object.
The method IteratorUtils.first(Iterator) is a shorthand for
IteratorUtils.get(Iterator, 0).
I do not
If you do try to run it locally make sure you add
true
To the configuration section of the plugin.
> On Jan 11, 2018, at 3:58 AM, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>
> Am Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:35:52 -0700 schrieb Gary Gregory:
>
>> I wonder if:
>> - This should be a LAZY VOTE since this is not an officia
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:16:01 -0600, Matt Benson wrote:
On Jan 11, 2018 7:59 AM, "Gilles"
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:49:40 -0600, Matt Benson wrote:
On Jan 10, 2018 9:22 PM, "Gary Gregory"
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Matt Benson
wrote:
As I'm sure you're aware, the plann
On Jan 11, 2018 7:59 AM, "Gilles" wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:49:40 -0600, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2018 9:22 PM, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
> As I'm sure you're aware, the planned obsolescence of this approach is its
>> obvious dra
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 07:49:40 -0600, Matt Benson wrote:
On Jan 10, 2018 9:22 PM, "Gary Gregory"
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Matt Benson
wrote:
As I'm sure you're aware, the planned obsolescence of this approach
is its
obvious drawback (a similar drawback exists already in the
On Jan 10, 2018 9:22 PM, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> As I'm sure you're aware, the planned obsolescence of this approach is its
> obvious drawback (a similar drawback exists already in the JavaVersion
> parameter type). I assume this is the reason
If you want to really test it in dry run mode you could run “mvn clean install”
on the src artifact and then configure it in a component and run a test
release. It should work just the same as if it was coming out of maven central.
-Rob
> On Jan 11, 2018, at 3:58 AM, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:35:35 +0100, Sergio Fernández wrote:
From ComDev, just discovered checker.a.o, and got into the following
report
with problems:
https://checker.apache.org/projs/commons.html
What do we usually do with such problems on dormant components?
IIUC, this
http://www.apache.
>From ComDev, just discovered checker.a.o, and got into the following report
with problems:
https://checker.apache.org/projs/commons.html
What do we usually do with such problems on dormant components?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Henk Penning (JIRA)
Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2018
Hi,
As announced on Berlin Buzzwords we (that is Isabel Drost-Fromm, Stefan
Rudnitzki as well as the eventing team over at newthinking communications GmbH)
are working on a new conference in summer in Berlin. The name of this new
conference will be "FOSS Backstage". Backstage comprises all things
Also, what is the use case for such methods?
How many will there be - i.e. do you plan to add .last, .second, .random?
I'm not keen on methods that save a few lines of code unless there's a
common use case and the behaviour is obvious/unambiguous from the
name.
On 11 January 2018 at 07:45, Claude
[ X ] +1 Release it.
I'm OK with the lazy vote from the other thread, or with this vote process.
Both work fine for me.
And fantastic work! Build from tag passing with `mvn clean test site` on:
Apache Maven 3.5.2 (138edd61fd100ec658bfa2d307c43b76940a5d7d;
2017-10-18T20:58:13+13:00)
Maven hom
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:21:53 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Matt Benson
wrote:
As I'm sure you're aware, the planned obsolescence of this approach
is its
obvious drawback (a similar drawback exists already in the
JavaVersion
parameter type). I assume this is the
Am Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:35:52 -0700 schrieb Gary Gregory:
> I wonder if:
> - This should be a LAZY VOTE since this is not an official component but
> rather a tool
+1
> - We should release it as 1.0 anyway (unless obvious bugs
> are found) to avoid the chicken and egg problem: To really test this
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:23:04 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:34:55 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
Hi All:
I find myself writing a lot of this kind of code:
if (SystemUtils.isJavaVersionAtLeast(JavaVersion.JAVA_1_8)) ...
and
A
What about casting this first release as 0.1?
Then we solve the chicken & egg problem: we can verify it the actual
components before releasing 1.0 (which semantically speaking has a strong
meaning.
On Jan 11, 2018 04:35, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
I wonder if:
- This should be a LAZY VOTE since thi
24 matches
Mail list logo
