Hey Johan,
Thank you for what you did, you are the initial committer of this project
and you will always be owner of this project :-)
In my future develop process, may be i will contact with you if i get some
problems. I am sure that your work wasn't wasted
2011/2/11 Johan Roxendal
> hey,
>
On 2011-02-11, Gump wrote:
> [javac]
> /srv/gump/public/workspace/apache-commons/attributes/compiler/src/java/org/apache/commons/attributes/compiler/AttributeCompiler.java:245:
> incompatible types
> [javac] found : com.thoughtworks.qdox.model.JavaPackage
> [javac] required: java.l
hi,
i suggest a new exception under the commons.lang.exception namely
ObjectExistsException extends IllegalArgumentException.
in the jpa world there is already one like this, bit i think it has merit for
also other cases outside of jpa and hence i would like to see it defined in
apache's com
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
Hi Thomas,
can you describe please in which non-JPA context the exception can
become useful?
Many thanks in advance, have a nice day,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM, thomas menzel wrote:
> hi,
>
> i suggest a new exception
To define a bar on exceptions; they need to be used by Commons Lang.
In 3.0 we've dropped the "this would be a better name for an
exception" exceptions as it's too easy for that to grow and grow.
Hen
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> can you describe please in
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2011-02-11, Gump wrote:
>
>> [javac]
>> /srv/gump/public/workspace/apache-commons/attributes/compiler/src/java/org/apache/commons/attributes/compiler/AttributeCompiler.java:245:
>> incompatible types
>> [javac] found : com.tho
On 11 February 2011 16:36, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2011-02-11, Gump wrote:
>>
>>> [javac]
>>> /srv/gump/public/workspace/apache-commons/attributes/compiler/src/java/org/apache/commons/attributes/compiler/AttributeCompiler.java:245:
my 0.02cents: I'm +1 on moving Attributes to dormant, since it aimed
provide an Java5 Annotation for VM that didn't support at all.
since it proved to be stable enough - Cedric Beust uses it on TestNG
library - there's no reason to continue be maintained for the reasons
explained by Sebastian.
Have
Hi all,
I would like to have 2.2 out as soon as possible. I would like to
propose yet another intermediate solution, not a perfect one, but trying
to mitigate everything that has been said here. Remember this is *only*
for 2.2 and it does *not* mean anything about 3.0 or any further
discussions.
Hi Luc,
+1
Thanks for the constructive post. I agree with the compromise although I
don't have the entire outlook of pros and cons.
Cheers, Mikkel.
Den 11/02/2011 18.50 skrev "Luc Maisonobe" :
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to have 2.2 out as soon as possible. I would like to
> propose yet another in
On 2/11/11 12:49 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to have 2.2 out as soon as possible. I would like to
> propose yet another intermediate solution, not a perfect one, but trying
> to mitigate everything that has been said here. Remember this is *only*
> for 2.2 and it does *not*
Le 11/02/2011 19:07, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 2/11/11 12:49 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I would like to have 2.2 out as soon as possible. I would like to
>> propose yet another intermediate solution, not a perfect one, but trying
>> to mitigate everything that has been said here. Re
On 11 February 2011 18:53, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 11/02/2011 19:07, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 2/11/11 12:49 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I would like to have 2.2 out as soon as possible. I would like to
>>> propose yet another intermediate solution, not a perfect one, but tryi
On 2/11/11 1:53 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 11/02/2011 19:07, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 2/11/11 12:49 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I would like to have 2.2 out as soon as possible. I would like to
>>> propose yet another intermediate solution, not a perfect one, but trying
>>> t
Le 11/02/2011 20:23, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 2/11/11 1:53 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 11/02/2011 19:07, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>> On 2/11/11 12:49 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to have 2.2 out as soon as possible. I would like to
propose yet another interme
I believe re-organizing the exception hierarchy is a great feature for a
major release. For minor releases, avoid refactoring that would break
current code.
Paul
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> So from the user perspective, the compatibility issue is that code
> that catch
On 2/11/11 3:03 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 11/02/2011 20:23, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 2/11/11 1:53 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Le 11/02/2011 19:07, Phil Steitz a écrit :
On 2/11/11 12:49 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to have 2.2 out as soon as possible.
Le 11/02/2011 21:34, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 2/11/11 3:03 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 11/02/2011 20:23, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>> On 2/11/11 1:53 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 11/02/2011 19:07, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 2/11/11 12:49 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
On 2/11/11 3:42 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 11/02/2011 21:34, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 2/11/11 3:03 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Le 11/02/2011 20:23, Phil Steitz a écrit :
On 2/11/11 1:53 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 11/02/2011 19:07, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 2/11/11 12:49 PM,
On 11 February 2011 20:58, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 2/11/11 3:42 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 11/02/2011 21:34, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>> On 2/11/11 3:03 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 11/02/2011 20:23, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 2/11/11 1:53 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 11/02/2011 19
On 2/11/11 4:12 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 February 2011 20:58, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 2/11/11 3:42 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Le 11/02/2011 21:34, Phil Steitz a écrit :
On 2/11/11 3:03 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 11/02/2011 20:23, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 2/11/11 1:53 PM, Luc M
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-attributes has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
Hi guys,
As far as exceptions is concerned it is a major change in the code and
leaving it out from the 2.2 release is a good idea. About the exceptions i
would like to point that in some cases new exceptions are needed so as to be
more clear to developers which one of them to use...
>
>This is by
26 matches
Mail list logo
