Phil Steitz wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
...
Good points - so what is your recommendation?
org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3
commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3
or
org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp:1.3
commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3
or
org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp:1.4
commons-dbcp:commo
Change
too.
nia...@apache.org wrote:
Author: niallp
Date: Fri Nov 27 01:14:36 2009
New Revision: 884737
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=884737&view=rev
Log:
Change source/target JDK to 1.4
Modified:
commons/proper/dbcp/branches/TEST_DBCP_1_3_BRANCH/pom.xml
Modified: commons/prope
Hi Grzegorz,
Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04:
>
>
> Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
> ...
>> Good points - so what is your recommendation?
>>
>> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3
>> commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3
>>
>> or
>>
>> org.apache.comm
Hi Jorg
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Grzegorz,
Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04:
Phil Steitz wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
...
Good points - so what is your recommendation?
org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3
commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3
Hi Grzegorz,
Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 10:45:
> Hi Jorg
>
> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Grzegorz,
>>
>> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04:
[snip]
> I didn't thought about Maven in this sentence. For me generally it's not
> good practic
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Grzegorz,
>
> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04:
>
>>
>>
>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>
>> ...
>>> Good points - so what is your recommendation?
>>>
>>> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Grzegorz,
>
> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 10:45:
>
>> Hi Jorg
>>
>> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Hi Grzegorz,
>>>
>>> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I didn't though
Are we going to keep the 2,3,4-arg versions? We have to have one that
accepts Object anyway, so I guess it does keep the API a bit cleaner
to not clutter it with a Map, Collection, etc. version. I really
don't like instanceof in code, though. It just screams bad design.
Usually it means that you
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Grzegorz,
>>
>> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 10:45:
>>
>>> Hi Jorg
>>>
>>> Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Grzegorz,
Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:
James,
I would typically agree about the bad design part except for the usage
of valdiation. Here, all we want to do is validate an object, as you
said, and the public API does not take advantage of the static type
(such as different parameters). It's better for introspection to
occur, IMO.
Paul
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Grzegorz,
>>
>> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04:
>>
>>>
>>> Phil Steitz wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> ...
Good points - so what is your recommendation?
o
2009/11/27 Phil Steitz :
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Hi Grzegorz,
>>>
>>> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04:
>>>
Phil Steitz wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
...
> Good points - so wh
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz :
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible
>>> wrote:
Hi Grzegorz,
Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04:
> Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
Hi Phil and Niall,
Phil Steitz wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jörg Schaible
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Grzegorz,
>>>
>>> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 10:45:
>>>
Hi Jorg
Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Grzegorz,
>
> Grze
2009/11/27 Phil Steitz :
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz :
>>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible
wrote:
> Hi Grzegorz,
>
> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04:
>
>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Phil and Niall,
>
> Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jörg Schaible
>>> wrote:
Hi Grzegorz,
Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 10:45:
> Hi Jo
I am recommending something unconventional here. We could include the
enforcer plug-in, in DBCP 1.4's POM, to enforce at least JDK 1.6 is
used. Just food for thought.
Paul
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Phil
2009/11/28 Paul Benedict :
> I am recommending something unconventional here. We could include the
> enforcer plug-in, in DBCP 1.4's POM, to enforce at least JDK 1.6 is
> used. Just food for thought.
Its not necessary since setting the source/target JDK version to 1.6
will ensure DBCP 1.4 is built
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz :
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz :
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>> Hi Grzegorz,
>>
>> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04:
19 matches
Mail list logo