Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

> I wonder what others think about this option? >> >> Cheers >> Bruno >> >> >>    From: Oliver Heger >>   To: dev@commons.apache.org >>   Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2018 4:13 AM >>   Subject: Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencie

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

To: dev@commons.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2018 4:13 AM Subject: Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0) Am 16.07.2018 um 13:40 schrieb Bruno P. Kinoshita: Saw some recent activity around lang 3.8, and remembered about this

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

day, 17 July 2018 4:13 AM Subject: Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0) Am 16.07.2018 um 13:40 schrieb Bruno P. Kinoshita: > Saw some recent activity around lang 3.8, and remembered about this issue, > and

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

Am 16.07.2018 um 13:40 schrieb Bruno P. Kinoshita: Saw some recent activity around lang 3.8, and remembered about this issue, and then looked for this thread. Gilles' point is really good! Here's the Java 9 docs with the deprecation warning, copied below as well https://docs.oracle.com/javase

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

be possible to have a simple functional interface to notify listeners about state changes. Oliver > > Cheers > Bruno > > > > > > From: Stephen Colebourne > To: Commons Developers List > Sent: Monday, 11 June 201

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

ebourne To: Commons Developers List Sent: Monday, 11 June 2018 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0) Good spot. I think that means [lang] would have to have its own copy of the JDK interfaces. o

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop > (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0) > > > > Good spot. I think that means [lang] would have to have its own copy > of the JDK interfaces. or just deprecate the functionality without > replacement. > Stephen

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

9:26 AM Subject: Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0) Good spot. I think that means [lang] would have to have its own copy of the JDK interfaces. or just deprecate the functionality without replacement. Stephen On 10 June

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

eems to be the best what we can do. >> >> Oliver >> >>> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/275 >>> >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1339 >>> >>> >>> >>> ___

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

onday, 5 June 2017 10:49 PM Subject: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0) Am 25.05.2017 um 18:23 schrieb Oliver Heger : Am 24.05.2017 um 13:55 schrieb Stephen Colebourne: On 23 May 2017 at 17:17, sebb wrote: Yes, the

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

che/commons-lang/pull/275 > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1339 > > > > From: Benedikt Ritter > To: Commons Developers List > Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017 10:49 PM > Subject: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependenci

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

On 10 June 2018 at 00:02, Bruno P. Kinoshita wrote: > Yes, that's my understanding. We would use require static on java.desktop, > but users wouldn't have any issues as long as they did not use the version of > the class that requires java.desktop. > > If the user want/needs to use those classes

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

and forget about this issue (-: Bruno From: Gary Gregory To: Commons Developers List ; Bruno P. Kinoshita Sent: Sunday, 10 June 2018 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

ache/commons-lang/pull/275 > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1339 > > > > From: Benedikt Ritter > To: Commons Developers List > Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017 10:49 PM > Subject: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to

Re: [LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

ava 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0) > Am 25.05.2017 um 18:23 schrieb Oliver Heger : > > > > Am 24.05.2017 um 13:55 schrieb Stephen Colebourne: >> On 23 May 2017 at 17:17, sebb wrote: >>>> Yes, the >

[LANG] Java 9 problems because of dependencies to java.desktop (Was: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0)

> Am 25.05.2017 um 18:23 schrieb Oliver Heger : > > > > Am 24.05.2017 um 13:55 schrieb Stephen Colebourne: >> On 23 May 2017 at 17:17, sebb wrote: Yes, the code compiles and both can be on the classpath, but it is a pain to use, just a different kind of hell. >>> >>> I don't se

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > On 25 May 2017 at 17:23, Oliver Heger > wrote: > > I also think that a new major release just to fix this problem would be > > overkill and cause clients even more trouble. > > > > Would the following approach work as a compromise: > >

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On 25 May 2017 at 17:23, Oliver Heger wrote: > I also think that a new major release just to fix this problem would be > overkill and cause clients even more trouble. > > Would the following approach work as a compromise: > > - [lang] declares an optional dependency to the desktop module. > - All

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

Am 24.05.2017 um 13:55 schrieb Stephen Colebourne: > On 23 May 2017 at 17:17, sebb wrote: >>> Yes, the >>> code compiles and both can be on the classpath, but it is a pain to >>> use, just a different kind of hell. >> >> I don't see what the problem is here. > > Library A that depends on lang3

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

Your point about BiFunction and BiPredicate is of course valid, but there are a couple of things about those things that remediate their awfulness. 1) They are interfaces, and thus describe function, not storage. 2) They are almost always transiently used, as anonymous/lamda classes, and so

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On May 24, 2017 9:42 AM, "Rob Tompkins" wrote: > On May 24, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Dave Brosius wrote: > > Let's be honest, a Pair class is a bad paradigm, invented for lazyness which throws away any informative metadata. I'm not sure all of this fighting is worth it over a this. Dependency/classp

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

> On May 24, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Dave Brosius wrote: > > Let's be honest, a Pair class is a bad paradigm, invented for lazyness which > throws away any informative metadata. I'm not sure all of this fighting is > worth it over a this. Dependency/classpath discussions aside (clearly using “Pair

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

Let's be honest, a Pair class is a bad paradigm, invented for lazyness which throws away any informative metadata. I'm not sure all of this fighting is worth it over a this. On 05/24/2017 09:08 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 24/05/2017 à 13:55, Stephen Colebourne a écrit : Library A that depe

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

Le 24/05/2017 à 13:55, Stephen Colebourne a écrit : > Library A that depends on lang3 returns a Pair. > Library B that depends on lang4 takes a Pair. > Application cannot pass Pair from A to the B without conversion. That's a valid point, but the severity depends on the library. joda-time with it

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On May 24, 2017 6:56 AM, "Stephen Colebourne" wrote: On 23 May 2017 at 17:17, sebb wrote: >> Yes, the >> code compiles and both can be on the classpath, but it is a pain to >> use, just a different kind of hell. > > I don't see what the problem is here. Library A that depends on lang3 returns a

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On 23 May 2017 at 17:17, sebb wrote: >> Yes, the >> code compiles and both can be on the classpath, but it is a pain to >> use, just a different kind of hell. > > I don't see what the problem is here. Library A that depends on lang3 returns a Pair. Library B that depends on lang4 takes a Pair. Ap

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Why does every discussion at commons become a discussion about jar hell? Because it is so damn easy to create one? ;-) Cheers, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For addi

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

Why does every discussion at commons become a discussion about jar hell? > Am 23.05.2017 um 12:17 schrieb sebb : > > On 23 May 2017 at 16:42, Stephen Colebourne > wrote: >> On 23 May 2017 at 16:07, sebb mailto:seb...@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >>> Huh? >>> >>> The whole

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On 23 May 2017 at 16:42, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > On 23 May 2017 at 16:07, sebb wrote: >> Huh? >> >> The whole point of changing the package name and Maven coords is to >> allow mutually incompatible jars to coexist peacefully on a single >> classpath. > > All you are doing in replacing one ki

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On 23 May 2017 at 16:07, sebb wrote: > Huh? > > The whole point of changing the package name and Maven coords is to > allow mutually incompatible jars to coexist peacefully on a single > classpath. All you are doing in replacing one kind of jar hell with another. Removing these methods means tha

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On 23 May 2017 at 16:22, Matt Sicker wrote: > Tying versions of commons-lang to releases of Java itself makes a bit of > sense to me, but then I do foresee projects containing like 5 different > versions of commons-lang in the future which is somewhat annoying. If the version of Lang is tied to J

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

Tying versions of commons-lang to releases of Java itself makes a bit of sense to me, but then I do foresee projects containing like 5 different versions of commons-lang in the future which is somewhat annoying. On 23 May 2017 at 10:07, sebb wrote: > On 23 May 2017 at 12:18, Stephen Colebourne

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On 23 May 2017 at 12:18, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > On 23 May 2017 at 11:54, sebb wrote: >>> Fixing it properly requires a major release, which implies that Lang >>> 4.0 is still Java 1.7 and should use the `org.apache.commons.lang3` >>> package name. >> >> I think that depends on whether the AP

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:33:39 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Gilles wrote: Can you be explicit with what counts as "noise"? Lets start with the number of threads, shall we? Or the number of "What depends on what" discussions? Or questions like "Which belongs

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Gilles wrote: > Can you be explicit with what counts as "noise"? Lets start with the number of threads, shall we? Or the number of "What depends on what" discussions? Or questions like "Which belongs to what?" (Feel free to suggest another measure.) Jochen -

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

the first time to prepare some releases of lang. Cheers Bruno From: Stephen Colebourne To: Commons Developers List Sent: Tuesday, 23 May 2017 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0 On 23 May 2017 at 11:54, sebb wrote: >> Fixing it pr

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On 23 May 2017 at 11:54, sebb wrote: >> Fixing it properly requires a major release, which implies that Lang >> 4.0 is still Java 1.7 and should use the `org.apache.commons.lang3` >> package name. > > I think that depends on whether the API is backwards-compatible or not. > > If it *is* backwards-

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On 23 May 2017 at 11:05, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > On 22 May 2017 at 00:56, Benedikt Ritter wrote: >> I think the time has come to start thinking about Lang 4.0. > > As I outlined in another thread, Lang 3.5 uses PropertyChangeListener, > which in module terms pulls in the whole of Swing and AW

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:13:21 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Rob Tompkins wrote: - commons-system: a library focused on working with system properties and detection of the operation system, system’s architecture and Java version - commons-concurrent: a library

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On 22 May 2017 at 00:56, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > I think the time has come to start thinking about Lang 4.0. As I outlined in another thread, Lang 3.5 uses PropertyChangeListener, which in module terms pulls in the whole of Swing and AWT. For a library like [lang] that is a bad thing and should

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

Le 23/05/2017 à 11:13, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit : > IMO, c-lang is running well, as it is. +1 Emmanuel Bourg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On 23 May 2017 at 10:13, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > I am -0 to -1 regarding the introduction of new components. I'd rather > see us redefine the purpose of commons-lang. The experience of > commons-math has demonstrated, IMO, that such new components will most > likely increase the noise without an

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Rob Tompkins wrote: >> - commons-system: a library focused on working with system properties and >> detection of the operation system, system’s architecture and Java version >> - commons-concurrent: a library providing additional abstractions and >> implementati

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On 22 May 2017 at 14:35, Jan Matèrne (jhm) wrote: > > One benefit of having an ASF commons "tuple library" is it's from the > ASF. > I am not joking. An ASF library promisses to have a community and a life > cycle you can > precognize. In contrast a "simple" github library is just a peace of

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

Yes, but tuples are generally useful outside of lambdas, well, at least the size 2 kind. Gary On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Pascal Schumacher < pascalschumac...@gmx.net> wrote: > Am 22.05.2017 um 17:55 schrieb Matt Sicker: > >> For the tuple classes, it would be possible to make an entire tu

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

Am 22.05.2017 um 17:55 schrieb Matt Sicker: For the tuple classes, it would be possible to make an entire tuples library. Might be handy to generate code for it as it'd be useful to support tuples up to, say, 22 fields (Scala has tuple classes and anonymous function classes up to 22 arguments, fo

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > For the tuple classes, it would be possible to make an entire tuples > library. Might be handy to generate code for it as it'd be useful to > support tuples up to, say, 22 fields (Scala has tuple classes and anonymous > function classes up to

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

For the tuple classes, it would be possible to make an entire tuples library. Might be handy to generate code for it as it'd be useful to support tuples up to, say, 22 fields (Scala has tuple classes and anonymous function classes up to 22 arguments, for example). See < https://www.scala-lang.org/a

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

> On May 21, 2017, at 7:56 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > > Hi, > > I think the time has come to start thinking about Lang 4.0. A new major > release is a chance to clean up stuff and get rid of APIs we don’t need > anymore/don’t want to maintain anymore. Lang has become rather large. It’s > d

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

One thought for a multi module 4.0 would be to cover Java 8. Gary On May 21, 2017 4:57 PM, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote: Hi, I think the time has come to start thinking about Lang 4.0. A new major release is a chance to clean up stuff and get rid of APIs we don’t need anymore/don’t want to maintain

Re: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:16 PM, dbrosIus wrote: > Might want to drop commons-date as well. Want people to use java.time > Or Joda-Time if you're on Java < 8. Gary > > Original message > From: Benedikt Ritter > Date: 5/21/17 7:56 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: Commons Developers L

RE: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0

Might want to drop commons-date  as well. Want people to use java.time  Original message From: Benedikt Ritter Date: 5/21/17 7:56 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Commons Developers List Subject: [LANG] Thoughts about Lang 4.0 Hi, I think the time has come to start thinking about Lan