Re: [beanutils] ConstructorUtils is unused

Hi Gary, On 6.08.2025 00:00, Gary Gregory wrote: > In both branch 1.X and master, the class ConstructorUtils is unused > and duplicates APIs in Commons Lang. > > I propose to drop it from master, which will be 2.0 when finalized. What should be the demarcation between Commons Text, Commons Lan

Re: [BeanUtils] Download Page has Broken Link to version 2.0.0-M2

There are two interesting items here: In this specific case, the main BU page is published from the git master branch which tracks version 2.x of the code. This branch is also used to generate the site which documents both 2.x and 1.x. 1.x just was released again, so the simplest way to document

RE: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

the end of October at the latest so I can avoid having to do my own fork of the library. Thanks, Josh. -Original Message- From: Josh Fenlason Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 3:25 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: RE: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

+1 for Java 8 as well. Unless there is a compelling feature in Java 11+ that could make a difference for beanutils from a user point of view. Emmanuel Bourg Le 25/09/2024 à 21:45, Josh Fenlason a écrit : While some might have some preferences on more recent Java versions, I haven't seen any

Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

> > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:21 AM > > To: Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0 > > > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > > links or open attachments u

RE: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

Sounds good. I'll keep an eye out for it. -Original Message- From: Gary Gregory Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 3:22 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organiz

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

-- > From: Gary Gregory > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 2:52 PM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links or open attac

RE: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

Excellent, thanks for that encouraging update! Is there anything I can assist with? Josh. -Original Message- From: Gary Gregory Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 2:52 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap CAUTION

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

> Thanks, > Josh. > > -Original Message- > From: Gary Gregory > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 4:26 PM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outs

Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

settle on Java 8 so this isn't an > impediment to getting a new BeanUtils 2.0 release out the door? > Josh. > > -Original Message- > From: Xeno Amess > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:21 AM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [beanutils] Java plaf

RE: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

the door? Josh. -Original Message- From: Xeno Amess Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 5:21 AM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the

RE: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

x27;s PR and wrap up this issue? Thanks, Josh. -Original Message- From: Gary Gregory Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 4:26 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do

Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

each version under which spring using be OK > > > > From: Richard Zowalla > > Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 12:59:15 PM > > To: Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0 > > > > My 2 cents are: BeanUtils is often used i

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

nk it ok...so Gary which part do you feel unsafe in it ？I must >> admit I am not that familiar to lawyer things.. >> >> From: Melloware Inc >> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 9:18:08 PM >> To: Commons Developers List >> Subject: R

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

m: Melloware Inc > Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 9:18:08 PM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap > > Well in my PR the license in the file says this. > > Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members o

Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

9:15 PM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0 > > My 2 cents are: BeanUtils is often used in the EE ecosystem EE 9.1 targets > 8/11, EE 10 targets 11/17, EE 11 targets 17 or higher. > > People are still doing the EE8 to 9.1/10 move

Re: [beanutils] any suggestions towards v2

There are two threads on this list, one for the custom map, one for the Java platform. Gary On Mon, Sep 16, 2024, 4:34 PM Steve Bosman wrote: > Hi, > > Do you have any suggestions for something I could look at to help get > beanutils ready for v2? > > Meanwhile, I've been looking at improving t

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

IMO I think it ok...so Gary which part do you feel unsafe in it ？I must admit I am not that familiar to lawyer things.. From: Melloware Inc Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 9:18:08 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] For 2.0

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

o: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap > > I submitted this PR years ago using ConcurrentWeakKeyHashMap from Doug Lea > and the Netty team but Gary had concerns from legal about being able to use > it. > > PR is here: http

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

why not write an email to lea ..maybe he be so kind that would be glad to offer one mit-like license copy of that class From: Melloware Inc Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 8:32:38 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] For 2.0

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

bro have a concurrent weak hashmap implement > somewhere...why not just ask him > after all nobody here more expert than him in this area > > From: Niall Pemberton > Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 1:46:32 PM > To: Commons Developers List >

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

I thought old d-lea bro have a concurrent weak hashmap implement somewhere...why not just ask him after all nobody here more expert than him in this area From: Niall Pemberton Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 1:46:32 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

good and should did it 5 years ago From: Niall Pemberton Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 1:46:32 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 at 19:59, Gary D. Gregory wrote: >

Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

for 90%+ normal user each version under which spring using be OK From: Richard Zowalla Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 12:59:15 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0 My 2 cents are: BeanUtils is often used in the EE

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 at 19:59, Gary D. Gregory wrote: > Hi All, > > For the upcoming 2.0.0-M1, I plan on replacing the custom WeakFastHashMap > with the stock ConcurrentHashMap. > > If you think this is a bad idea, please tell us why. It’s a good idea for the “fast” part, but the “weak” aspect a

Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

My 2 cents are: BeanUtils is often used in the EE ecosystem EE 9.1 targets 8/11, EE 10 targets 11/17, EE 11 targets 17 or higher. People are still doing the EE8 to 9.1/10 move (thanks to the name change). So perhaps 11 or 17 would be a good fit for a baseline version. Gruß Richard Am 14. Sep

Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 22:01, Gary Gregory wrote: > > The age does not really matter Elric, it's the percentage of people using a > platform. See the links in my previous email. I think the highest we can go > is 17, but that's just me. According to the 3rd link, Java version usage in 2024 is 7

Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

The age does not really matter Elric, it's the percentage of people using a platform. See the links in my previous email. I think the highest we can go is 17, but that's just me. Gary On Fri, Sep 13, 2024, 4:11 PM Elric wrote: > On 12/09/2024 19:21, Gary D. Gregory wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > An

Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

On 12/09/2024 19:21, Gary D. Gregory wrote: Hi All, Any thoughts on the minimum Java platform requirement for 2.0? Options are (IMO): 8, 11, 17, or 21. I have no vote, but I would go for 21. This will likely be a decision that will have an impact for a long time. 21 is 1 year old, 17 is 3 y

RE: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

I could live with any of these. -Original Message- From: Melloware Inc Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:25 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open

RE: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

I concur. -Original Message- From: Melloware Inc Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:25 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open

Re: [beanutils] Java plaform for 2.0

My vote would be for 11 but I am ok with 8 if people feel strongly. On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 1:21 PM Gary D. Gregory wrote: > Hi All, > > Any thoughts on the minimum Java platform requirement for 2.0? > > Options are (IMO): 8, 11, 17, or 21. > > Some perhaps helpful information: > > - > https://w

Re: [beanutils] For 2.0, WeakFastHashMap vs ConcurrentHashMap

I think this is a good idea. On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 1:00 PM Gary D. Gregory wrote: > Hi All, > > For the upcoming 2.0.0-M1, I plan on replacing the custom WeakFastHashMap > with the stock ConcurrentHashMap. > > If you think this is a bad idea, please tell us why. > > Gary > > --

Re: [beanutils] Thoughts on PR https://github.com/apache/commons-beanutils/pull/276

I agree with Gary. If an object is exposing sensitive data in its toString() then the problem should be fixed at the source. Peter On Tue, Sep 3, 2024, 11:04 AM Gary D. Gregory wrote: > I appreciate the intent but this feels like bad solution. If a toString() > method return a password, then t

Re: [beanutils] Should Commons BeanUtil types implement Serializable

+1 Please include an example (or pseudocode) for people of a serialization proxy, since not all readers may be familiar with Bloch or his book. On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 11:54 AM Melloware Inc wrote: > +1 from me. > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 12:51 PM Gary D. Gregory > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > >

Re: [beanutils] Should Commons BeanUtil types implement Serializable

+1 from me. On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 12:51 PM Gary D. Gregory wrote: > Hi All, > > Considering the long history of problematic Serializable implementations > throughout the Java ecosystem, not just in Commons, I propose that no > BeanUtils types implement Serializable in the upcoming new major ver

Re: [beanutils] Thoughts on PR https://github.com/apache/commons-beanutils/pull/276

I appreciate the intent but this feels like bad solution. If a toString() method return a password, then the security issue is in the toString() IMO. Gary On 2024/09/03 14:18:03 Melloware Inc wrote: > I could be wrong but his whole intent of that PR was not logging a > bean.toString() that might

Re: [beanutils] Thoughts on PR https://github.com/apache/commons-beanutils/pull/276

I could be wrong but his whole intent of that PR was not logging a bean.toString() that might accidentally expose a password. That seems to be his entire goal. So if there is a better way to achieve that goal is what i think the developer was going for. On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 9:52 AM Gary D. Gre

Re: [beanutils] Thoughts on PR https://github.com/apache/commons-beanutils/pull/276

On 2024/08/31 12:44:19 Melloware Inc wrote: > I feel like this PR is a good idea. Just from a safety perspective and not > accidentally logging a password. The PR does nothing to avoid logging passwords. It only plays games when a bean implements toString() which might have unexpected consequenc

Re: [beanutils] BeanUtilsBean2 vs BeanUtilsBean, ConvertUtilsBean2 vs ConvertUtilsBean

Gary, I just built the SNAPSHOT locally and tested against my production scenarios and all is good! On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 8:03 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All, > > The pull-up refactoring and adjusted tests are now in git master. > Pease verify your use cases if any. > > Gary > > On Sun, Sep 1

Re: [beanutils] BeanUtilsBean2 vs BeanUtilsBean, ConvertUtilsBean2 vs ConvertUtilsBean

Hi All, The pull-up refactoring and adjusted tests are now in git master. Pease verify your use cases if any. Gary On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 8:00 AM Melloware Inc wrote: > > +1 for Gary's second option as well. > > On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 3:47 AM Niall Pemberton > wrote: > > > On Sat, 31 Aug 2024

Re: [beanutils] BeanUtilsBean2 vs BeanUtilsBean, ConvertUtilsBean2 vs ConvertUtilsBean

+1 for Gary's second option as well. On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 3:47 AM Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 at 20:45, Dávid Szigecsán wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > While I'm still getting familiar with things here, I'd like to share my > > thoughts on this issue. In my view, version 2.0 typical

Re: [beanutils] BeanUtilsBean2 vs BeanUtilsBean, ConvertUtilsBean2 vs ConvertUtilsBean

On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 at 20:45, Dávid Szigecsán wrote: > Hi, > > While I'm still getting familiar with things here, I'd like to share my > thoughts on this issue. In my view, version 2.0 typically signifies a break > in backward compatibility, which makes the second solution—changing the > supertyp

Re: [beanutils] BeanUtilsBean2 vs BeanUtilsBean, ConvertUtilsBean2 vs ConvertUtilsBean

Hi, While I'm still getting familiar with things here, I'd like to share my thoughts on this issue. In my view, version 2.0 typically signifies a break in backward compatibility, which makes the second solution—changing the supertype's behavior—acceptable. Given the existence of BeanUtilsBean2 and

Re: [beanutils] Thoughts on PR https://github.com/apache/commons-beanutils/pull/276

I feel like this PR is a good idea. Just from a safety perspective and not accidentally logging a password. On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 5:41 PM Gary D. Gregory wrote: > Hi All, > > Does anyone have thoughts on PR > https://github.com/apache/commons-beanutils/pull/276 ? > > TY, > Gary > > --

Re: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on collections4?

> > -Original Message- > From: Gary Gregory > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 1:14 PM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on > collections4? > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organi

RE: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on collections4?

ory Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 1:14 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on collections4? CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know t

Re: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on collections4?

st one, but I've never received a response. My > username appears to exist, but I can't login or reset the password. > Thanks, > Josh. > > -Original Message- > From: Gary Gregory > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 2:13 PM > To: Commons Developers List >

RE: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on collections4?

ay, August 22, 2024 2:13 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on collections4? CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the conten

Re: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on collections4?

essage- > From: Gary Gregory > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 11:50 AM > To: josh.fenla...@veritas.com.invalid > Cc: dev@commons.apache.org > Subject: Re: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on collections4? > > One remaining development task

RE: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on collections4?

rsday, August 22, 2024 11:50 AM To: josh.fenla...@veritas.com.invalid Cc: dev@commons.apache.org Subject: Re: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on collections4? One remaining development task for 2.x is to pull up the "2" types into their parent: - org.apache.com

Re: [beanutils] Plans to release beanutils with dependency on collections4?

One remaining development task for 2.x is to pull up the "2" types into their parent: - org.apache.commons.beanutils2.BeanUtilsBean2 extends BeanUtilsBean - org.apache.commons.beanutils2.ConvertUtilsBean2 extends ConvertUtilsBean The last time I tried this, tests failed and I was semi-stuck as to

Re: [beanutils] any plan for a new release of beanutils?

Gary, I know your time is limited. This is not a comment on you personally, I know how much time you put in Apache Commons. But it is a comment on Apache Commons in general and their strict release and release processes and limited number of people who can do releases. As I mentioned before some

Re: [beanutils] any plan for a new release of beanutils?

Why not help resolve one of the last issues, if not the last for 2.0 then: pulling up the "2" type(s?) into their super types (I think there is only one). The last time I tried, some tests failed. Gary On Sat, Aug 17, 2024, 9:38 AM Melloware Inc wrote: > Jia, > > Sadly it's the same reason I fo

Re: [beanutils] any plan for a new release of beanutils?

Jia, Sadly it's the same reason I forked it and released it to Maven Central. My client needed to get rid of commons collections3 and BeanUtils 1.9.4 is tied to it. We wanted to only have Commons Collections4 in all our code. https://github.com/melloware/commons-beanutils2 com.melloware c

Re: [beanutils] any plan for a new release of beanutils?

Hello Jia, A release will happen only if required to fix a bug that hampers development. Is there a fix/change in the 1.X branch you need that is not in 1.9.4? See changes.xml Gary On 2024/08/17 09:51:55 吾名 wrote: > dear Commons maintainers, > > > Thank you for your greatr work in Apache Com

Re: [BEANUTILS] Is there a good reason for Converter to not be a FunctionalInterface?

In git master: Annotated Converter with @FunctionalInterface. Gary On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 3:12 AM Claude Warren wrote: > > I am looking at BeanUtils as part of the CLI options to parse a command > line option string into a class. > > I see that Converter is an interface with one method; convert

Re: [BEANUTILS] Is there a good reason for Converter to not be a FunctionalInterface?

Also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-564 Gary On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 7:02 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > > Also: > > - BeanIntrospector > - LocaleConverter > > Gary > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 6:56 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > > > > No reason aside from the fact that the code base is not

Re: [BEANUTILS] Is there a good reason for Converter to not be a FunctionalInterface?

Also: - BeanIntrospector - LocaleConverter Gary On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 6:56 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > > No reason aside from the fact that the code base is not fully > modernized. You could also ask if Converter should extend BiFunction. > > I would like to create a release candidate for a 2.0.

Re: [BEANUTILS] Is there a good reason for Converter to not be a FunctionalInterface?

No reason aside from the fact that the code base is not fully modernized. You could also ask if Converter should extend BiFunction. I would like to create a release candidate for a 2.0.0-M1 release soon. This would unlock a lot of other work down the line. One item holding us back is that BeanUti

Re: [BEANUTILS] Is there a good reason for Converter to not be a FunctionalInterface?

The 1.9.x releases are pre-JDK 8. The project looks set up for a 2.0 release where such a change might make sense but I don't think that has happened yet. Cheers, Paul. On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 6:12 PM Claude Warren wrote: > > I am looking at BeanUtils as part of the CLI options to parse a comman

Re: [Beanutils] BeanUtilsBean2

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 1:47 PM Gary Gregory wrote: > > For 2.0, I think we should make the BeanUtilsBean2 class introduced in > 1.8.0 the only behavior, removing the need for the class. I think, these kind of ideas are exactly, what we have major updates for. Jochen -- Philosophy is useless,

Re: [Beanutils] BeanUtilsBean2

+1 BeanUtilsBean2 extends BeanUtilsBean. Merging the two into a single class sounds OK for a major release and a good simplification. -Bruno On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 13:47, Gary Gregory wrote: > For 2.0, I think we should make the BeanUtilsBean2 class introduced in > 1.8.0 the only behavior, remo

Re: [beanutils] - Toward release of 2.0

I'm afraid patience is key, being the mother of all virtues and all... I've not even gone through all the Jiras and PRs to see what matters and what does not for a major release... Gary On Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 13:42 Bill Beiter wrote: > Thanks for the quick response Gary Anything I can do to pi

Re: [beanutils] - Toward release of 2.0

Thanks for the quick response Gary Anything I can do to pitch in? Or must I be patient? I'm not very good at that 😜 On Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 1:27 PM Gary Gregory wrote: > We'll get there eventually. There are a couple of other components that > need to be addressed first. > > Gary > > On Fri, Nov

Re: [beanutils] - Toward release of 2.0

We'll get there eventually. There are a couple of other components that need to be addressed first. Gary On Fri, Nov 18, 2022, 12:52 Bill Beiter wrote: > In reviewing BEANUTILS-532 > , > it is unclear what the best way to c

Re: beanutils 2.0.0 release?

I just fixed the Jira version as released. Gary On Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 09:17 Julian Reschke wrote: > Am 27.09.2022 um 15:13 schrieb Julian Reschke: > > Hi, > > > > over in Jackrabbit land I'm trying to get rid of commons-collections > > (not 4) dependencies, and dutifully moved over to beanutils

Re: beanutils 2.0.0 release?

Yes, 1.9.4 is the current version: https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-beanutils/ Gary On Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 09:17 Julian Reschke wrote: > Am 27.09.2022 um 15:13 schrieb Julian Reschke: > > Hi, > > > > over in Jackrabbit land I'm trying to get rid of commons-collections > > (not 4) depend

Re: beanutils 2.0.0 release?

Am 27.09.2022 um 15:13 schrieb Julian Reschke: Hi, over in Jackrabbit land I'm trying to get rid of commons-collections (not 4) dependencies, and dutifully moved over to beanutils for some classes - just to discover that the latest version has a dependency on commons-collections itself (-> BEANU

Re: [BeanUtils] JPMS

Great minds Matt, great minds... ;-) Gary On Mon, Apr 25, 2022, 13:10 Matt Sicker wrote: > Now that sounds like a good reason for beanutils2, too. Module splits > to allow for minimal module dependencies is a great idea IMO, though I > may be biased since we already started the same idea in Log

Re: [BeanUtils] JPMS

Now that sounds like a good reason for beanutils2, too. Module splits to allow for minimal module dependencies is a great idea IMO, though I may be biased since we already started the same idea in Log4j for 3.x a while ago, too. On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:55 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > > Hi All, > >

Re: [beanutils]

Meanwhile, the bar in different apache group seems different. For example I think more than half committers in Apache Dobbo do not have enough ability to be an ASF committer, if we use the bar we used in commons. Xeno Amess 于2022年4月23日周六 13:26写道： > The bar to become an ASF committer is high. > F

Re: [beanutils]

The bar to become an ASF committer is high. For example I am not an ASF committer yet, while I think I have the ability to be one, but nope until we meet some uncertain bar. And the bar is unclear to me, which is the worst part. Matt Sicker 于2022年4月22日周五 01:57写道： > What I mean is that Commons is

Re: [beanutils]

What I mean is that Commons is open to any ASF committers, so the bar to committing is super low. If you can handle the non-PMC-specific parts of the release process (mainly having it all ready to run the commands), then a PMC member can help with release signing and all that. Volunteering to manag

Re: [beanutils]

@Matt Sicker Like what I said before, there be no current active commons committers who interested in developing bean-utils. For example, commons-math have sebb, commons-lang & text & vfs have gary, commons-compress have peterAL, but seems nobody is interested in commons-beanutils Currently Gary

Re: [beanutils]

Matt, I totally agree. I asked over and over for almost a year for a release. I understand the contributors are busy. I was submitting PRs that were not getting reviewed and merged. I have a client that had 2 concerns…the security findings and the fact it still used commons collections 3

Re: [beanutils]

I don’t see why that couldn’t have been done here. There’s no need to fork Commons projects when they’re fairly open to contributors. — Matt Sicker > On Apr 20, 2022, at 16:19, Melloware Inc wrote: > > It was supposed to be temporary until Apache released 2.0. It’s been over 5 > years since

Re: [beanutils]

It was supposed to be temporary until Apache released 2.0. It’s been over 5 years since last beanutils release so it’s a good thing I did in my opinion. Melloware @melloware on GitHub > On Apr 20, 2022, at 3:31 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > You are crearting jar hell by reusing the Apache pa

Re: [beanutils]

You are crearting jar hell by reusing the Apache package names under different Maven coordinates. Not a good idea IMO. Gary On Wed, Apr 20, 2022, 15:27 Melloware wrote: > I did not the package names are the same I did this because I had > multiple clients complaining about Commons Beantutils 1.

Re: [beanutils]

I did not the package names are the same I did this because I had multiple clients complaining about Commons Beantutils 1.9.4 security vulnerabilities and needed a public version of the code so it could be scanned.  Whenever the REAL BeanUtils2 is ever released to Maven Central my clients can s

Re: [beanutils]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 18:54, Melloware wrote: > > And and I have forked it and deployed to Maven Central > > >com.melloware >commons-beanutils2 >2.0.0 > > Did you change the package names? If not, there will be problems in the future if a project depends on both via different depe

Re: [beanutils]

And and I have forked it and deployed to Maven Central   com.melloware   commons-beanutils2   2.0.0 On 4/20/2022 10:12 AM, Xeno Amess wrote: Well I wonder should we give melloware (https://github.com/melloware) a committer permission. Since: 1. he has quite some experience here, not a fres

Re: [beanutils]

Well I wonder should we give melloware (https://github.com/melloware) a committer permission. Since: 1. he has quite some experience here, not a fresh hand. 2. he has ability to write/review good codes.(already several thousands lines in common-beanutils). 3. he has enough time and interest to

Re: [beanutils]

There isn't one; we are all volunteers here ;-) There is probably clean up to do, PRs, Jiras, releasing and synching with Commons Collections 4.5 first (probably). Gary On Wed, Apr 20, 2022, 07:21 Martin Aldrin wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder what the time plan for release of beanutils2 is. > > > /M

Re: [beanutils] Towards 2.0?

Also toward 2.0, we need to collapse: org.apache.commons.beanutils2.BeanUtilsBean org.apache.commons.beanutils2.BeanUtilsBean2 and org.apache.commons.beanutils2.ConvertUtilsBean org.apache.commons.beanutils2.ConvertUtilsBean2 and probably add classes in org.apache.commons.beanutils2.converters

Re: [beanutils] Towards 2.0?

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 2:53 AM Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 17/10/2019 à 19:45, Gary Gregory a écrit : > > > It seems like org.apache.commons.collections4.Predicate can/should be > > replaced by java.util.function.Function > > Did we consider modifying collections4 such that Predicate extends > Fu

Re: [beanutils] Towards 2.0?

Le 17/10/2019 à 19:45, Gary Gregory a écrit : > It seems like org.apache.commons.collections4.Predicate can/should be > replaced by java.util.function.Function Did we consider modifying collections4 such that Predicate extends Function? That would ease the transition to the Java 8 types. Emmanue

Re: [beanutils] Towards 2.0?

Gary, I misunderstood I apologize. I see you are saying convert anywhere we are using Commons Collections with JDK8 native calls then yes I would definitely support that. Let me see if I can take a crack at it and submit a PR. Melloware

Re: [beanutils] Towards 2.0?

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:33 AM Melloware wrote: > +1 as in I think the library is ready to go "as is" for 2.0 release. > It's a feature rich stable library. > > It has always had the Commons Collections stuff in there but if you feel > the need to rip it out then rip it out. If not then I woul

Re: [beanutils] Towards 2.0?

+1 as in I think the library is ready to go "as is" for 2.0 release.  It's a feature rich stable library. It has always had the Commons Collections stuff in there but if you feel the need to rip it out then rip it out.  If not then I would just release the 2.0 version of the library. --

Re: [beanutils] Towards 2.0?

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:11 PM Melloware wrote: > +1 from me > What is your +1 about? Gary > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >

Re: [beanutils] Towards 2.0?

+1 from me - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [beanutils] Towards 2.0?

Ah…good point….just saw that bit from BEANUTILS-520 -Rob > On Oct 13, 2019, at 11:42 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > I think we had talked in the past about not letting Commons Collections > APIs "leak" out of the BeanUtils API. > > Gary > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 20:16 Rob Tompkins wrote: > >> C

Re: [beanutils] Towards 2.0?

I think we had talked in the past about not letting Commons Collections APIs "leak" out of the BeanUtils API. Gary On Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 20:16 Rob Tompkins wrote: > Curious if anyone has any thoughts here on what needs to be done as we > work towards a 2.0 for beanutils…..does anyone else want

Re: [BEANUTILS] website still refers to SVN

I think these issues should be sorted out. Let me know if you find any more.] Cheers, -Rob On 8/15/2019 5:57 AM, sebb wrote: It looks like the pom has not been updated to change the SCM. There are various other issues, e.g. download hash types. The tag obviously cannot/must not be updated,

Re: [BEANUTILS] website still refers to SVN

Working on this now. Thanks for the eyes. -Rob On 8/15/2019 5:57 AM, sebb wrote: It looks like the pom has not been updated to change the SCM. There are various other issues, e.g. download hash types. The tag obviously cannot/must not be updated, so I wonder if one approach would be to create

Re: [beanutils] Towards 1.10

I suppose doing both wouldn’t be unreasonable. It’ll take me a few weeks as I’m in the ramp up phase at a new gig. But I’ll start heading that direction. -Rob > On Jun 5, 2019, at 8:39 AM, Melloware wrote: > > Do you think we could also get a BeanUtils2 release while we are at it? It > suppo

Re: [beanutils] Towards 1.10

Do you think we could also get a BeanUtils2 release while we are at it?  It supports Java 8 and has many fixes in the last 3 years. On 6/5/2019 8:37 AM, Rob Tompkins wrote: I can try to backport the fix to the 1.X branch. -Rob On 6/5/2019 8:09 AM, Melloware wrote: Rob, I 100% agree since C

Re: [beanutils] Towards 1.10

I can try to backport the fix to the 1.X branch. -Rob On 6/5/2019 8:09 AM, Melloware wrote: Rob, I 100% agree since CVE-2014-0114 has been fixed in BeanUtils I think we need a release. However the 1.X branch seems dormant it seems for the last 3 years everything has been working on is Bean

Re: [beanutils] Towards 1.10

Note that BeanUtils 2 is a major update with a package name change, meaning it is not a drop in replacement. The one main remaining issue to discuss IIRC is whether the BU API should make public Commons Collections interface and classes, as opposed to more generic JRE Collections. Gary On Wed, J

  1   2   3   >