I second Ted. Do we really need this function at all? Just for the sake of
adding a piece of code should not run the purpose of adding an API
function.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> You could do this with with CollectionsUtils from [Collections].
> But I think we all
Hi,
since I got no replies, I'm moving this to a new thread to get some more
attention ;-)
I'm having a problem with Contiuum. This all started, when I added a new
module to [CHAIN], a test-utils module, that contains code used for testing
used across the other modules.
Shortly after that Contiuu
Hi Benedikt,
I will add 1 more imp point.
We should public relations more with the student circles. No doubt Apache
is very very popular in java programming group. But ppl especially students
dont know how to contribute in it.
Thanks
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Al
Hi,
just to make sure we have agreement on this topic.
Reading again the thread about release alpha/beta releases I think we did
not reach consensus whether to publish alpha releases to maven central.
It would be easier for people to try out things, but the release will stay
there forever and som
Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> You could do this with with CollectionsUtils from [Collections].
> But I think we all agree that implementing a Predicate inline is a lot
> more verbose than the proposed method.
+1
We have traditionally such convenience methods in lang.
When I look at the current argum
On 4 July 2013 19:43, Rafael Santini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose a method in ObjectUtils class that receives an array
> of objects and returns true if all objects are not null. I have implemented
> the following:
>
> public static boolean isNull(Object object) {
>return object ==
On 5 July 2013 08:13, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since I got no replies, I'm moving this to a new thread to get some more
> attention ;-)
>
> I'm having a problem with Contiuum. This all started, when I added a new
> module to [CHAIN], a test-utils module, that contains code used for testing
Le 05/07/2013 10:24, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
> Hi,
Hi Thomas,
>
> just to make sure we have agreement on this topic.
> Reading again the thread about release alpha/beta releases I think we did
> not reach consensus whether to publish alpha releases to maven central.
>
> It would be easier for
2013/7/5 Anshul Zunke
> Hi Benedikt,
>
> I will add 1 more imp point.
>
> We should public relations more with the student circles. No doubt Apache
> is very very popular in java programming group. But ppl especially students
> dont know how to contribute in it.
>
But how do we do this? I Think
2013/7/5 sebb
> On 5 July 2013 08:13, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > since I got no replies, I'm moving this to a new thread to get some more
> > attention ;-)
> >
> > I'm having a problem with Contiuum. This all started, when I added a new
> > module to [CHAIN], a test-utils module, tha
I think this can be done through social medias like Facebook etc. If we
create an official page of this community and some of us could give some
time in helping members of the page through their java code etc they will
get attracted towards contributing.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Benedikt R
Huge +1
2013/7/5 Benedikt Ritter :
> Hi,
>
> we had this discussion lately where we talked about attracting new
> contributors for commons [1]. Over the past few days I've been thinking
> about this topic again and I've come to the conclusion that there are
> several things we could do to improve
2013/7/5 Luc Maisonobe :
> Le 05/07/2013 10:24, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
>> Hi,
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
>>
>> just to make sure we have agreement on this topic.
>> Reading again the thread about release alpha/beta releases I think we did
>> not reach consensus whether to publish alpha releases to maven c
Over at log4j we release betas to maven central. I think we should do
so here too for alphas. It's just too much of a pain to use a jar in a
build otherwise.
Gary
On Jul 5, 2013, at 4:24, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just to make sure we have agreement on this topic.
> Reading again the thr
Instead of mirroring to git why not switch to git?
Gary
On Jul 4, 2013, at 16:20, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we had this discussion lately where we talked about attracting new
> contributors for commons [1]. Over the past few days I've been thinking
> about this topic again and I've come
We could also publish it to the Apache public repository but prevent the
sync with maven central.
In the announcement and on the site, add instructions on how to us it via
maven (add repository settings for apache public).
btw. looking at the public repository, it contains also the latest
snapshot
I'd really like to see that, but as far as I can remember there were
arguments against this kind of change, when we discussed this the last time.
Maybe you can just create a [PROPOSAL] or even a [VOTE] and we'll see what
happens? ;-)
Benedikt
2013/7/5 Gary Gregory
> Instead of mirroring to gi
2013/7/5 Anshul Zunke
> I think this can be done through social medias like Facebook etc. If we
> create an official page of this community and some of us could give some
> time in helping members of the page through their java code etc they will
> get attracted towards contributing.
>
I don't s
Hello.
For Commons Math, I think that the issue of attracting users and
contributors is less one of a modern-looking site (and even less
of appearing in ) than making engineering and
science people aware that tools also exist in Java.
In many of the class Javadoc comment, we link to articles on
On 5 July 2013 13:06, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> We could also publish it to the Apache public repository but prevent the
> sync with maven central.
Is that possible?
Anyhow, I'm not sure it makes any difference - it's still published as
a Maven jar.
So long as it's very clear that the API may ch
Enough time has passed since I proposed the change, it is now in SVN.
Gary
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Thomas Neidhart
wrote:
> On 07/02/2013 05:24 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > CompliantBag is just terrible, I'm sorry.
> >
> > If we want to follow [DecoratorType][CollectionType] then Collect
Do we really need the method
org.apache.commons.collections4.BagUtils.collectionBag(Bag) ?
All it does is:
public static Bag collectionBag(final Bag bag) {
return CollectionBag.collectionBag(bag);
}
Gary
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence
2013/7/5
> Author: ggregory
> Date: Fri Jul 5 13:44:02 2013
> New Revision: 157
>
Almost hit the 1.5 million ;-)
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r157
> Log:
> Rename CompliantBag to CollectionBag.
>
> Added:
>
> commons/proper/collections/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/collecti
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2013/7/5
>
> > Author: ggregory
> > Date: Fri Jul 5 13:44:02 2013
> > New Revision: 157
> >
>
> Almost hit the 1.5 million ;-)
>
There goes my claim to fame, darn. ;)
G
>
>
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r157
> > Log:
> >
On 7/5/13 4:35 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Over at log4j we release betas to maven central. I think we should do
> so here too for alphas. It's just too much of a pain to use a jar in a
> build otherwise.
Do you subsequently introduce incompatible API changes with no
package name change in the "stab
On 5 July 2013 15:47, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 7/5/13 4:35 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Over at log4j we release betas to maven central. I think we should do
>> so here too for alphas. It's just too much of a pain to use a jar in a
>> build otherwise.
>
> Do you subsequently introduce incompatible AP
I added it for consistency with the other decorators which all have a
similar method.
Thomas
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Do we really need the method
> org.apache.commons.collections4.BagUtils.collectionBag(Bag) ?
>
> All it does is:
>
> public static Bag collect
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 7/5/13 4:35 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Over at log4j we release betas to maven central. I think we should do
> > so here too for alphas. It's just too much of a pain to use a jar in a
> > build otherwise.
>
> Do you subsequently introduce
On 7/5/13 7:59 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 July 2013 15:47, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 7/5/13 4:35 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> Over at log4j we release betas to maven central. I think we should do
>>> so here too for alphas. It's just too much of a pain to use a jar in a
>>> build otherwise.
>> Do you su
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 7/5/13 7:59 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 5 July 2013 15:47, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> On 7/5/13 4:35 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >>> Over at log4j we release betas to maven central. I think we should do
> >>> so here too for alphas. It's just too mu
On 7/5/13 9:32 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 7/5/13 7:59 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 5 July 2013 15:47, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 7/5/13 4:35 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Over at log4j we release betas to maven central. I think we should do
>>>
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 7/5/13 9:32 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Phil Steitz
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/5/13 7:59 AM, sebb wrote:
> >>> On 5 July 2013 15:47, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 7/5/13 4:35 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Ove
Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Phil Steitz
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/5/13 9:32 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Phil Steitz
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 7/5/13 7:59 AM, sebb wrote:
>> >>> On 5 July 2013 15:47, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 7/5/13 4:35 A
On 5 July 2013 17:45, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 7/5/13 9:32 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/5/13 7:59 AM, sebb wrote:
On 5 July 2013 15:47, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 7/5/13 4:35 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Over at log4j we releas
On 5 July 2013 17:52, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 7/5/13 9:32 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Phil Steitz
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 7/5/13 7:59 AM, sebb wrote:
>> >>> On 5 July 2013 15:47, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >>
On Jul 5, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 7/5/13 9:32 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Phil Steitz
>> wrote:
>>>
On 7/5/13 7:59 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 July 2013 15:47, Phil Steitz wrote
AFAIK, a release is a release. If you're voting on a project, a successful
vote creates an Apache artifact that needs to be published to the world.
Maven just released their 3.1.0-alpha. That release will be forever out
there, but since it's not production quality, usage will eventually
drop-off on
On 5 July 2013 19:10, Paul Benedict wrote:
> AFAIK, a release is a release. If you're voting on a project, a successful
> vote creates an Apache artifact that needs to be published to the world.
Yes, but ASF software does not have to be released to Maven Central.
The only requirement is to releas
The thread about Collections Alpha release to Maven Central got me thinking.
So long as an Alpha release is only used for testing/local use, it
does not matter where it is published.
The problem comes if the Alpha release becomes a dependency of another
product which is then released.
So how do
Don't try to solve how to stop an alpha release from becoming integrated.
If someone does that, there's inherit risk involved. I don't see how this
is any different, per se, a beta or RC release. If you build on unstable
code, the only support advice I'd will get is: upgrade to the latest GA. :-)
On 07/05/2013 10:24 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just to make sure we have agreement on this topic.
> Reading again the thread about release alpha/beta releases I think we
> did not reach consensus whether to publish alpha releases to maven central.
>
> It would be easier for people to tr
Am 05.07.2013 21:27, schrieb Paul Benedict:
Don't try to solve how to stop an alpha release from becoming integrated.
If someone does that, there's inherit risk involved. I don't see how this
is any different, per se, a beta or RC release. If you build on unstable
code, the only support advice I'
I really do not like the idea of putting a time-bomb in software,
especially coming from us!
This is not a problem for us to solve IMO.
All we need to decide is (1) whether we should release alphas and betas,
and if so, (2) where to release them.
After all, we do not prevent people from using Co
43 matches
Mail list logo
