On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>
> [ ] +1 release it
> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>
> Ralph
>
> tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/vfs/tags/commons-vfs-project-2.0/
W
On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>
> [ ] +1 release it
> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> [X] -1 no, do not release it because...
The code has a dependency on Commons NET 2.0, which requires Java 1.5+
However VFS targets Java 1.4+
No
On 5 November 2010 09:49, sebb wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>>
>> [ ] +1 release it
>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>> [X] -1 no, do not release it because...
>
> The code has a dependency on Commons NET 2.0, which requ
I do not think we can help you to debug your source code, but you can give
us some detail questions in your project, may be we can help you. In fact,
as Rahul told you, you can visit our Visual SCXML editor web site first,
maybe you can use our source code, or even improve it
2010/11/5 Bilel Messa
On 4 November 2010 22:18, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>> > Modified:
>> > commons/proper/math/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math/util/MathUtils.java
>> > URL:
>> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/math/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math/util/MathUtils.java?rev=1030464&r1=
On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:00 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>>
>> [ ] +1 release it
>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> tag:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repo
On Nov 5, 2010, at 3:03 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 09:49, sebb wrote:
>> On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>> [X] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>
>> Th
Hi.
> > [...]
> > >
> > > What about new code? With the current signature and documentation
> > > there is no information on possible exception conditions. The fact
> > > the method will throw an exception on failure needs to be
> > expressed.
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
> > The fact is: You don't
On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:49 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>>
>> [ ] +1 release it
>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>> [X] -1 no, do not release it because...
>
> The code has a dependency on Commons NET 2.0, which
Hi Gilles, and sorry for mistyping your name in my previous message,
- "Gilles Sadowski" a écrit :
> Hi.
>
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > What about new code? With the current signature and
> documentation
> > > > there is no information on possible exception conditions. The
> fact
> > > >
- "Henri Yandell" a écrit :
> Though depends on what you're submitting. JIRA issues, no worries.
> Just hit the checkbox each time you add a patch.
>
> If you become a committer, or if you're submitting something large,
> then we will ask you to sign an ICLA.
>
> When signing an ICLA, your
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=1417&projectId=65
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Fri 5 Nov 2010 13:38:23 +
Finished at: Fri 5 Nov 2010 13:42:43 +
Total time: 4m 20s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Bui
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=1421&projectId=97
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Fri 5 Nov 2010 14:26:26 +
Finished at: Fri 5 Nov 2010 14:30:40 +
Total time: 4m 13s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Bui
Luc,
> > [...]
> >
> > There are at least 2 different issues:
> > 1. What is the recommended behaviour of implementations
> > 2. What CM will do when it calls "value" and catches an exception
>
> There is a third issue, and it was a driver for the current architecture.
> Some CM algorithms are u
On Nov 4, 2010, at 7:33 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 04/11/2010 14:21, Brian Fox wrote:
>>> How about users that want to work with sources on platforms where CRLF
>>> endings are a PITA?
>>
>> Simply tar.gz'ing the files changes the line endings?
>
> No. Tomcat's build processes are more sop
> >> So go ahead with the change, removing the throws from the declaration but
> >> keeping the javadoc as suggested previously.
> >
> > Again, what is it that you try to convey by specifying a single exception in
> > the Javadoc? Any unchecked exception can be thrown from a class that
> > impleme
Hello.
> >> So go ahead with the change, removing the throws from the declaration but
> >> keeping the javadoc as suggested previously.
> >
> > Again, what is it that you try to convey by specifying a single exception in
> > the Javadoc? Any unchecked exception can be thrown from a class that
> >
On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:49 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>>
>> [ ] +1 release it
>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>> [X] -1 no, do not release it because...
>
> The code has a dependency on Commons NET 2.0, which
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Do you really consider this to be a -1? I consider this to be a
> documentation issue. User's can pick and choose which providers they want
> and simply need to be aware that Net 2.0 requires 1.5.
>
The providers are auto-registered base
Hi James,
James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>>
>> Do you really consider this to be a -1? I consider this to be a
>> documentation issue. User's can pick and choose which providers they
>> want and simply need to be aware that Net 2.0 requires 1.5.
>>
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> This is not the point. If they add net 2.0 to the classpath they are using
> Java 5 probably anyway. The interesting quesiton is, what happens if net 1.4
> is on the classpath? I'd guess the provider is also auto-registered, but
> will cras
On Nov 5, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> James Carman wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ralph Goers
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you really consider this to be a -1? I consider this to be a
>>> documentation issue. User's can pick and choose which providers they
>
On 5 November 2010 15:30, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:49 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>> [X] -1 no, do not release it because...
>
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:10 PM, sebb wrote:
> If so, what about someone using Java 1.4 - can they update to VFS 2.0,
> but keep the FTP support from NET 1.4?
> Or will they lose FTP support entirely?
>
FTP support works without Net at all. I just ran a test client and
excluded anything but the
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:22 PM, James Carman
wrote:
>
> FTP support works without Net at all. I just ran a test client and
> excluded anything but the "core" from the classpath. It used the
> org.apache.commons.vfs.provider.url.UrlFileSystem to handle FTP URLs.
Interestingly enough, the progra
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:10 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 15:30, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:49 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I d
Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> James Carman wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ralph Goers
>>> wrote:
Do you really consider this to be a -1? I consider this to be a
documentation issue. User's can pic
- "Gilles Sadowski" a écrit :
> Hello.
>
> > >> So go ahead with the change, removing the throws from the
> declaration but keeping the javadoc as suggested previously.
> > >
> > > Again, what is it that you try to convey by specifying a single
> exception in
> > > the Javadoc? Any unchecke
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> As alternative: Can't we simply raise the minimum JDK level for VFS to 1.5
> also?
>
+1! Quit living in the past. Of course, we then have to discuss the
package name (and thus artifact id) change. :)
I disagree that this is a blocker. This *might* be a documentation
issue that the FTP and FTPS providers require Java 1.5. Everything
else is just fine and usable.
On a side note: Everything but Java 6 has been EOLed. I would be
perfectly cool for all new components to be implicit "runs only on
Ja
I disagree with this. The tests run a little but almost no one will
ever run them. Shipping a 3MB file that is used with one test in the
whole distribution seems to be a waste of space and bandwidth for
everyone else.
-h
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 06:03, sebb wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 09:49, sebb
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> If NET 2.0 is truly optional, then it is not a blocker so long as it
>> is clearly documented.
>>
>> I assume that NET 2.0 was added in order to support FTPS?
>
> I have no idea. You did the update from 1.4.1 to 2.0 in 999496 on 09/21/10.
> > >
> > > I don't know if it's relevant here, but it's standard practice in
> > lots
> > > of code I've seen to document unchecked exceptions in the @throws
> > > block if your code explicitly throws it.
> >
> > This would be the minimum, but it seems that CM tries to be better in
> > that
> >
I like that idea. A lot. +1
-h
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> As alternative: Can't we simply raise the minimum JDK level for VFS to 1.5
> also?
>
> - Jörg
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...
I read all the concerns and comments and I believe that the
commons-net thing is a documentation issue. People who still use Java
1.4 today should probably know what they do when they upgrade a major
version changed new release of an API.
So my vote is +1 to release VFS as tagged and put there.
-
> -Original Message-
> From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:henn...@schmiedehausen.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 09:46
> To: Commons Developers List; joerg.schai...@gmx.de
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons VFS 2.0
>
> I like that idea. A lot. +1
>
> -h
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 201
On 5 November 2010 16:28, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:10 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 5 November 2010 15:30, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:49 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>
On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
requirements on the front page of the project. It's not even in the project
dependencies either.
So we should at least update the docs IMO for Java 5.
Gary
> -Original Message-
> From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mail
On 5 November 2010 16:43, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>>>
>>> If NET 2.0 is truly optional, then it is not a blocker so long as it
>>> is clearly documented.
>>>
>>> I assume that NET 2.0 was added in order to support FTPS?
>>
>> I have no idea. Yo
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:36 AM, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>
>> As alternative: Can't we simply raise the minimum JDK level for VFS to 1.5
>> also?
>>
>
> +1! Quit living in the past. Of course, we then have to discuss the
> package name (and th
On 5 November 2010 16:50, Gary Gregory wrote:
> One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
> requirements on the front page of the project. It's not even in the project
> dependencies either.
My thoughts exactly.
> So we should at least update the docs IMO for Java
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 09:52
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons VFS 2.0
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:36 AM, James Carman wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jö
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> If package names change it will require a bit of work. I'm not sure there is
> anyone using 1.0. All the questions on the dev list have been for 2.0 for
> quite some time.
>
I'm using 1.x in our project I believe, but then again, I don't
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM, James Carman
wrote:
>
> Interestingly enough, the program fails when I put net 1.4.1 on the
> classpath with:
>
> Exception in thread "main"
> org.apache.commons.vfs.FileNotFoundException: Could not read from
> "ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/MISC/CBCP.TXT"; because it is
At this point is that just a web site change (post release)? Do we have to
change the package names and re-release?
Ralph
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> I like that idea. A lot. +1
>
> -h
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> As alternativ
On 5 November 2010 16:51, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:36 AM, James Carman wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>>
>>> As alternative: Can't we simply raise the minimum JDK level for VFS to 1.5
>>> also?
>>>
>>
>> +1! Quit living in the past. Of cour
Hi Gilles,
- "Gilles Sadowski" a écrit :
> Luc,
>
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > There are at least 2 different issues:
> > > 1. What is the recommended behaviour of implementations
> > > 2. What CM will do when it calls "value" and catches an exception
> >
> > There is a third issue, and it was
On 5 November 2010 16:56, Ralph Goers wrote:
> At this point is that just a web site change (post release)? Do we have to
> change the package names and re-release?
Why change package names? Surely the API is compatible? If not, then a
name change may be advisable even if staying with Java 1.4.
xfer to dev distro =)
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 10:23 AM, James Carman
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Phil Steitz
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The challenge with making a smart pool implementation is that it is hard
> to
> >> define an algorithm that "does no harm" (i.e. always actually impro
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:57 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 16:51, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:36 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jörg Schaible
>>> wrote:
As alternative: Can't we simply raise the minimum JDK level for VFS to 1.5
Ralph Goers wrote:
> At this point is that just a web site change (post release)? Do we have
> to change the package names and re-release?
No. VFS itself is backward compatible, we cannot really check every time any
dependency - even if it is another commons dependency. So site update is
still
Gary Gregory wrote:
> One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
> requirements on the front page of the project. It's not even in the
> project dependencies either.
>
> So we should at least update the docs IMO for Java 5.
+1
Not a blocker though.
However, it seems
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> Why change package names? Surely the API is compatible? If not, then a
> name change may be advisable even if staying with Java 1.4.
>
Seems reasonable to me, but the question to be asked is, why do we
jump to 2.0 here? Is there really a revolution
On 5 November 2010 17:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
>> requirements on the front page of the project. It's not even in the
>> project dependencies either.
>>
>> So we should at least update the docs IMO fo
James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM, James Carman
> wrote:
>>
>> Interestingly enough, the program fails when I put net 1.4.1 on the
>> classpath with:
>>
>> Exception in thread "main"
>> org.apache.commons.vfs.FileNotFoundException: Could not read from
>> "ftp://ftp.microsoft.c
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:18 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> It's not possible currently to compile the core code using Java 1.4.
>
> Since we ship source, I think this is a blocker.
>
And, it's easy to fix, so why not just cut a new RC?
-
T
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> Do you also try 2.2-SNAPSHOT ?
>
> When I look at http://commons.apache.org/net/changes-report.html and
> http://commons.apache.org/net/clirr-report.html it seems that 2.2 is again
> not really binary compatible anymore.
>
It fails with the
On 5 November 2010 17:15, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> James Carman wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM, James Carman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Interestingly enough, the program fails when I put net 1.4.1 on the
>>> classpath with:
>>>
>>> Exception in thread "main"
>>> org.apache.commons.vfs.FileNotFo
On Nov 5, 2010, at 10:20 AM, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:18 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> It's not possible currently to compile the core code using Java 1.4.
>>
>> Since we ship source, I think this is a blocker.
>>
>
> And, it's easy to fix, so why not just cut a new RC?
>
Onl
sebb wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 17:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
>>> requirements on the front page of the project. It's not even in the
>>> project dependencies either.
>>>
>>> So we should at least
James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> Why change package names? Surely the API is compatible? If not, then a
>> name change may be advisable even if staying with Java 1.4.
>>
>
> Seems reasonable to me, but the question to be asked is, why do we
> jump to 2.0 he
On 5 November 2010 17:36, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
>> On 5 November 2010 17:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
requirements on the front page of the project. It's not even in the
pr
sebb wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 17:36, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 November 2010 17:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Gary Gregory wrote:
> One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
> requirements on the front page of the project. It's n
Ralph Goers wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>
> [ ] +1 release it
> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
I've build the artifacts from the distributed src tarball and it went fine
(incl. tests) with my compiler zoo for all compilers (
I think I'll add another standard descriptor to the default bundle,
and then projects can opt for the tar.gz simply by setting a property.
I'm hesitant to start causing all projects to generate two copies of
the source archives by default, since many of them seem happy with
just a zip.
On Thu, Nov
If we do require a minimum of Java 1.5 for VFS 2.0, we probably also
need to ensure that the code compiles without warnings on Java 1.5.
This would mean adding @Override etc. annotations and generics.
Thoughts?
-
To unsubscribe,
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:16, "sebb" wrote:
> If we do require a minimum of Java 1.5 for VFS 2.0, we probably also
> need to ensure that the code compiles without warnings on Java 1.5.
>
> This would mean adding @Override etc. annotations and generics.
>
> Thoughts?
+1 but not a blocker
Gary
>
>
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:15 PM, sebb wrote:
> If we do require a minimum of Java 1.5 for VFS 2.0, we probably also
> need to ensure that the code compiles without warnings on Java 1.5.
>
> This would mean adding @Override etc. annotations and generics.
>
> Thoughts?
>
While that would be a good
I added the 3MB file to the test-data directory, so createLargeFile normally
won't run.
Are there any more changes? I'm ready to try the release again.
Ralph
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:26 PM, s...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: sebb
> Date: Fri Nov 5 19:26:06 2010
> New Revision: 1031735
>
> URL: ht
On 5 November 2010 19:32, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I added the 3MB file to the test-data directory, so createLargeFile normally
> won't run.
Someone complained about adding that amount of test data, so I thought
I'd fix it another way.
Still safer though not to create a 3GB file ...
> Are there any
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> The first release in 4 years? ;-)
>
> We had the discussion for io 2.0 and therefore vfs 2.0 is fine for me also.
> We have new providers and a lot of closed JIRA issues.
>
That's not enough to merit a major version jump, IMHO. Why not call
You weren't fast enough :-) I started rerunning the release already. Gotta
leave for the airport in 30 mins.
I've rerun the build several times already without problems.
The versions and upgrading JUnit can be done for the next release.
Ralph
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:47 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 5
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:53 PM, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> The first release in 4 years? ;-)
>>
>> We had the discussion for io 2.0 and therefore vfs 2.0 is fine for me also.
>> We have new providers and a lot of closed JIRA issues.
>>
>
> That'
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Simply bumping the JDK requirement is enough to go from 1.x to 2.x IMO.
>
Again, I'm going to harp on the consistency factor. If we go to 2.0
without changing artifactId and package, then future releases will be
inconsistent. See other thre
On 5 November 2010 20:00, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>>
>> Simply bumping the JDK requirement is enough to go from 1.x to 2.x IMO.
>>
>
> Again, I'm going to harp on the consistency factor. If we go to 2.0
> without changing artifactId and package
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:04 PM, sebb wrote:
> I just don't think the need for consistency has been agreed.
>
Not by all, no.
> I suggest you create a Wiki with the arguments so far (as I have
> started for Maven groupId)
>
We need to come to a consensus about this JDK version requires a major
v
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
Since the last candidate the jdk version has been changed to 1.5 and the
requirement has been added to the web site main page. The test file for
LargeTarTestCase has been added to the test-data directory, greatly improving
the build time. Many
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
>
> Since the last candidate the jdk version has been changed to 1.5 and the
> requirement has been added to the web site main page. The test file for
> LargeTarTestCase has been added to the t
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-vfs has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue a
Hello.
> [...]
Of course, I didn't overlook that you just ask for a
@throws FunctionEvaluationException when the evaluation failed.
Javadoc comment.
I'm just reluctant to publicize a guideline that is not adhered to in CM!
Whenever a method is passed an argument that doesn't fulfill pre-condit
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-scxml-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-jelly-tags-quartz has an issue affecting its community
integratio
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
83 matches
Mail list logo
