On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Simone Tripodi
> wrote:
>> Hi all guys,
>> I just fixed the clirr report generation and deployed the chain2 site
>> on my personal ASF space[1], in order we can discuss the patch that
>> Elijah kindly provided.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi again guys,
> I did a little work on the v2 branch of [chain] to fix checkstyle
> errors, obviously clirr[1] errors increased but new ones are IMHO
> trivial, since concern internal data structures already exposed via
> getters - the o.a.c
Hi again guys,
I did a little work on the v2 branch of [chain] to fix checkstyle
errors, obviously clirr[1] errors increased but new ones are IMHO
trivial, since concern internal data structures already exposed via
getters - the o.a.c.chain.impl.ChainBase#commands was exposed at
package level just
you reminded me that commons has as well a guideline[1], I need to
read it more carefully! :P
[1] http://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Well... I follow this pa
Well... I follow this pattern:
http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> thanks!!!
> what about dropping deprecated methods? since we are upgrading to
> major version, they can be dropped... or not?
> TIA!!!
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org
thanks!!!
what about dropping deprecated methods? since we are upgrading to
major version, they can be dropped... or not?
TIA!!!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>> At the same time, everybody: do you agr
> At the same time, everybody: do you agree on replacing package.html
> with package-info.java?
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Nice, thanks for the reminder, I'll keep it in mind when splitting the
submodules!!!
At the same time, everybody: do you agree on replacing package.html
with package-info.java?
TIA, all the best!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:06
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> if I remember correctly, maven should be able to aggregate submodules
> apidocs, I will ask to mvn ML.
Yes, it can. The javadoc plugin has an aggregate option.
Paul
-
Hi Paul,
if I remember correctly, maven should be able to aggregate submodules
apidocs, I will ask to mvn ML.
Thanks for the feedback and the hint!!!
Have a nice day, all the best,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Paul Benedic
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> Hi all guys,
> I noticed that properly setting the 1.5 as target compliance level,
> there are some @Override annotations that in cases of interfaces
> methods implementation should be dropped. Do you agree on it?
Yes, @Override from interf
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> Hi all guys,
> I noticed that properly setting the 1.5 as target compliance level,
> there are some @Override annotations that in cases of interfaces
> methods implementation should be dropped. Do you agree on it?
>
> Moreover, I'd like to p
Hi all guys,
I noticed that properly setting the 1.5 as target compliance level,
there are some @Override annotations that in cases of interfaces
methods implementation should be dropped. Do you agree on it?
Moreover, I'd like to propose to split the chain component, for v2.0,
in a multi-module pr
Hi guys,
sorry I'm late but looks like my local timezone sometimes doesn't
allow me replying promptly :P
@Matt: you are welcome, any time :) Unfortunately I'm not so familiar
with [chain] codebase, I cannot be useful ATM :(
@Elijah: patches are always welcome ;) For those tests that seems
generic
Hi Simo,
Before we look at releasing the changes (after a trunk merge), I think that
we will need to update the documentation to include Generics and possibly
change the unit tests to use Generics. That said - I'm cautious about
changing the unit tests because they are verifying that the API works
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> Hi all guys,
> I just fixed the clirr report generation and deployed the chain2 site
> on my personal ASF space[1], in order we can discuss the patch that
> Elijah kindly provided.
> WDYT? It is IMHO acceptable in order to apply the modifica
I am curious about the change of normal collections to concurrent
collections. Is there overhead with the concurrent stuff? Most of my
context access is not multithreaded.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> Hi all guys,
> I just fixed the clirr report generation and deployed
Hi all guys,
I just fixed the clirr report generation and deployed the chain2 site
on my personal ASF space[1], in order we can discuss the patch that
Elijah kindly provided.
WDYT? It is IMHO acceptable in order to apply the modifications in /trunk.
TIA, all the best!!!
Simo
[1] http://people.apac
Hi Matt,
your suggestion makes indeed a lot of sense! I'll copy the /trunk to a
branch and publish the site, once applied the patch, on my home@asf as
soon as I have spare time today, so we can discuss together clirr
report results.
Many thanks for your hint, have a nice day!!!
Simo
http://people.
On 22 August 2011 15:53, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Any thoughts on dumping the checked exception?
> public interface Command { ... boolean execute(T
> context) throws Exception; }
No view on whether it is needed or not.
I'd just point out that Exceptions are not part of the method
signatures used t
Any thoughts on dumping the checked exception?
public interface Command { ... boolean execute(T
context) throws Exception; }
Paul
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> I am generally in favor. I think it could be good to apply his patch
> on a branch so we can discuss the clirr
I am generally in favor. I think it could be good to apply his patch
on a branch so we can discuss the clirr results and agree on the
severity of the (IMHO forgivable) backward-compatibility breaches.
Then we will understand the proper path forward with respect to
versions and all the changes that
Hi all guys,
Elijah, a [chain] user, has been submitting worthy contributions[1] to
improve and actualize the commons-chains component, providing also
patches[2].
I think it is the good time to start speaking about the next [chain]
version (no new releases/development in the last months), any
objec
23 matches
Mail list logo
