Henri,
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> How would that work?
>
> If I do work on one component and want to release it, do I have to
> wait on 7 other releases?
>
If you work on one Commons Collection artifact within a Commons
Collection release, yes.
Paul
How would that work?
If I do work on one component and want to release it, do I have to
wait on 7 other releases?
Multiple artifacts is going to encourage growth, but without separate
release cycles it's going to create release stagnation.
I'd suggest figuring out what the dependency tree is bef
But not splitting into separate releases, just separate artifacts. As
stated before, separate releases creates a compatibility matrix. These
aren't separate projects, but different areas of one.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Stephen Colebourne
On Jan 5, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
[SNIP]
And splitting [collections]? Definitely a good idea. I would remove
all the Predicate/Closure/Transformer code (if you believe in FP,
use [functor]). Then split the rest by implementations of JDK
collections, and extended JDK coll
There are many good points in this thread. My input is to try and
outline where I have seen te boundaries.
[lang] vs [math] - [lang] doesn't require a maths degree. [math] does.
[lang] vs [functor] - [lang] doesn't require FP knowledge or religion.
[functor] does.
[io] - handles Stream, Read
Paul Benedict wrote:
> Each if you split Collections into Maven children, you would still
> wouldn't want to release them independently. That would be a gigantic
> administrative error. Struts was thinking about doing the same thing
> with its libraries, but we turned away from it -- THANKFULLY. Ho
On Jan 2, 2010, at 3:27 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Phil Steitz
wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
I was thinking more that a smaller [collections] might have room for
the functor code again - not that [lang] would :) Agreed that it's
better out than in though.
Th
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Henri,
>
>> I would be tempted to schedule major upgrade cycles, while having
>> minor ones run independently. Still tricky to do, and hurts
>> innovation. Then again - having a scheduled 'v4.0 of all Commons
>> components will now be availabl
Henri,
> I would be tempted to schedule major upgrade cycles, while having
> minor ones run independently. Still tricky to do, and hurts
> innovation. Then again - having a scheduled 'v4.0 of all Commons
> components will now be available to be worked on' time might make
> innovation happen more e
Henri,
> Lang's math.NumberUtils and math.Fraction for example. MathUtils and a
> little bit of StatUtils do look to be similar in scope.
I have voiced booting the whole math package from Commons Lang.
Anytime another project inches its way into another, that's my signal
its poorly placed. I stil
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Each if you split Collections into Maven children, you would still
> wouldn't want to release them independently. That would be a gigantic
> administrative error. Struts was thinking about doing the same thing
> with its libraries, but we tur
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> I was thinking more that a smaller [collections] might have room for
>> the functor code again - not that [lang] would :) Agreed that it's
>> better out than in though.
>
> That is instructive, but sort of hurts the cas
Each if you split Collections into Maven children, you would still
wouldn't want to release them independently. That would be a gigantic
administrative error. Struts was thinking about doing the same thing
with its libraries, but we turned away from it -- THANKFULLY. How
would you explain to users
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> Overlap between Lang and Collections is starting to increase a bit.
>>> Requested items for ArrayUtils (LANG-238, LANG-470) are better
>>> implemented imo as an ArraySet class. An easy add to Coll
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> One final comment is that a logical alternative is to just split
>> [collections] internally into multiple pieces with separate release
>> cycles. Managing dependencies among the subcomp
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> Overlap between Lang and Collections is starting to increase a bit.
>> Requested items for ArrayUtils (LANG-238, LANG-470) are better
>> implemented imo as an ArraySet class. An easy add to Collections.
>>
>> ComparableCo
I do not like the divide between Lang and Collections. I think it's a
superficial divide that can never really be complete, and the forces
of logic naturally pulls us back together in some regards. It's
consternation to keep these projects separate. Why must we keep
trying?
I'd like to propose mer
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Overlap between Lang and Collections is starting to increase a bit.
> Requested items for ArrayUtils (LANG-238, LANG-470) are better
> implemented imo as an ArraySet class. An easy add to Collections.
>
> ComparableComparator made its way (privately) over for the new Range
>
If by 'jdk enhancer' you mean 'provide newer functionality to older
jdks', I completely agree.
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Briefly looking at
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/mahout/trunk/math/src/main/java/org/apache/mahout/math/
> - it looks like this is more
Briefly looking at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/mahout/trunk/math/src/main/java/org/apache/mahout/math/
- it looks like this is more along the lines of the Collections as new
data structures/algorithms rather than Collections as JDK enhancer?
Ignoring the edge case overlaps with Math and
Henri,
To make this more interesting, the new collections over in mahout-math
might be covering some of the territory you are looking for here.
--benson
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Overlap between Lang and Collections is starting to increase a bit.
> Requested items
Additional thought... the Collections Test library should move to
being a first class component in Commons rather than a side thought
inside Collections. So this is three new components from one:
* Test library
* Core JDK [Lang merge?]
* Collections impls
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Henri Ya
Overlap between Lang and Collections is starting to increase a bit.
Requested items for ArrayUtils (LANG-238, LANG-470) are better
implemented imo as an ArraySet class. An easy add to Collections.
ComparableComparator made its way (privately) over for the new Range
class. Fair enough - Comparable
23 matches
Mail list logo
