[codec] DoubleMetaphone code coverage and bugs

I have improved the code coverage of DoubeMetaphone from 87% to 97% which a new test case. See: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-83 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=799961 Adding this test uncovered some bugs in DoubleMetaphone and I have created a patch to fix them: See:

Re: svn commit: r799933 - /commons/proper/math/trunk/src/site/xdoc/xdoc.xsl

Bill Barker wrote: - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 2:43 PM Subject: svn commit: r799933 - /commons/proper/math/trunk/src/site/xdoc/xdoc.xsl Author: psteitz Date: Sat Aug 1 21:43:45 2009 New Revision: 799933 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=799

Re: svn commit: r799933 - /commons/proper/math/trunk/src/site/xdoc/xdoc.xsl

- Original Message - From: To: Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 2:43 PM Subject: svn commit: r799933 - /commons/proper/math/trunk/src/site/xdoc/xdoc.xsl Author: psteitz Date: Sat Aug 1 21:43:45 2009 New Revision: 799933 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=799933&view=rev Log:

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-jelly-tags-jaxme (in module commons-jelly) failed

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-jaxme has an issue affecting its community integration

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-jelly-tags-fmt-test (in module commons-jelly) failed

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-fmt-test has an issue affecting its community integrat

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 JSR-223 initial implementation added - what next?

I've been recently through a lot of the code so I'm confident enough about its thread-safety to use it in this way (share an instance of a UnifiedJEXL engine & its underlying JexlEngine). However, I dont intend to use it through the jsr-223 interface; if the jsr-223 "multi-threaded engine" or "th

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 JSR-223 initial implementation added - what next?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Henrib wrote: > > > > Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> >> ... >> Correct, some patterns of usage make more sense than others. But to >> make any claims via the 223 API, we have to do rigorous code >> inspection and add some tests. Until someone does that, lets return >> null.

Re: [VOTE] Release Math 2.0

Jörg Schaible a écrit : > Hi Luc, > > Luc Maisonobe wrote: > >> Jörg Schaible a écrit : >>> Hi Luc, >>> > [snip] > >>> we're definitely on the right track. After changing the loop in >>> TestProblem3 the tests run through. However, now I have two failing >>> tests: >> The two tests are in fact t

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 JSR-223 initial implementation added - what next?

Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > ... > Correct, some patterns of usage make more sense than others. But to > make any claims via the 223 API, we have to do rigorous code > inspection and add some tests. Until someone does that, lets return > null. > ... > Should I create a bug for later then - just a

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-configuration-test (in module apache-commons) failed

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-configuration-test has an issue affecting its community integrati

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 branch test failure

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Henrib wrote: > > Ooops, sorry, Nabble did not show your message early enough ; made a JEXL-66 > & fix. Thanks anyway, resolved issue since sebb has fixed the test. -Rahul - To unsubscribe, e-mai

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 branch test failure

Ooops, sorry, Nabble did not show your message early enough ; made a JEXL-66 & fix. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--2.0-branch-test-failure-tp24771550p24771758.html Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ---

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 branch test failure

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM, sebb wrote: > On 01/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> Failed tests: >>   testDottedNames(org.apache.commons.jexl.scripting.JexlScriptEngineTest) >> >>  (Sun 1.6) >> >>  Quick look suggests that the test is expecting map toString() to >>  output entries in a certain o

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 branch test failure

Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > Failed tests: > testDottedNames(org.apache.commons.jexl.scripting.JexlScriptEngineTest) > Made that JEXL-66; added quick patch -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-JEXL--2.0-branch-test-failure-tp24771550p24771743.html Sent from the Commons - De

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 branch test failure

On 01/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > Failed tests: > testDottedNames(org.apache.commons.jexl.scripting.JexlScriptEngineTest) > > (Sun 1.6) > > Quick look suggests that the test is expecting map toString() to > output entries in a certain order. Have to step away for a bit, so > this is just

[JEXL] 2.0 branch test failure

Failed tests: testDottedNames(org.apache.commons.jexl.scripting.JexlScriptEngineTest) (Sun 1.6) Quick look suggests that the test is expecting map toString() to output entries in a certain order. Have to step away for a bit, so this is just a heads up on the failure I'm seeing. -Rahul ---

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 JSR-223 initial implementation added - what next?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:24 PM, sebb wrote: > On 01/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:10 AM, sebb wrote: >>  > On 01/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: >>  >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:21 AM, sebb wrote: >>  >> >>  >>  > The ScriptEngine implementation could even make certain

Re: [compress] ar/cpio and last modfied times

On 2009-08-01, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Stefan Bodewig a écrit : >> That's what I assume as well, I'm just hoping that anybody else would >> know for sure before I "fix" it. > I created an archive with GNU ar to check the timestamp, I confirm > it's in seconds. Thanks for the check (should have

Re: CANCELLED: [VOTE] Release Math 2.0

Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Phil, Phil Steitz wrote: Luc Maisonobe wrote: Jörg Schaible a écrit : Hi Phil, one thing that also irritated me first was the directory layout. While we do not necessarily follow the Maven conventions always (mainly because of historical reasons) we

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 JSR-223 initial implementation added - what next?

On 01/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:10 AM, sebb wrote: > > On 01/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:21 AM, sebb wrote: > >> > On 01/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:42 PM, sebb wrote: > >> >> > On 31/07

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 JSR-223 initial implementation added - what next?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Henrib wrote: > > > > sebb-2-2 wrote: >> >> Thread-safety: is the interpreter thread-safe? >> > > Both the JexlEngine & UnifiedJEXL are intended to be thread-safe & shared. > Besides usage of final fields in any applicable case, the (Expression, > UnifiedJEXL.Expres

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 JSR-223 initial implementation added - what next?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:10 AM, sebb wrote: > On 01/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:21 AM, sebb wrote: >>  > On 01/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: >>  >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:42 PM, sebb wrote: >>  >>  > On 31/07/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: >>  >>  >> On Thu, Jul 30

Re: CANCELLED: [VOTE] Release Math 2.0

Hi Phil, Phil Steitz wrote: > Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> Jörg Schaible a écrit : >> >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> one thing that also irritated me first was the directory layout. While >>> we do not necessarily follow the Maven conventions always (mainly >>> because of historical reasons) we have in case

Re: [VOTE] Release Math 2.0

Hi Luc, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Jörg Schaible a écrit : >> Hi Luc, >> [snip] >> we're definitely on the right track. After changing the loop in >> TestProblem3 the tests run through. However, now I have two failing >> tests: > > The two tests are in fact the same test repeated. The first occurr

Re: [math] 2.0 binary distro corpulence

On 01/08/2009, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Phil Steitz a écrit : > > > There have been a few comments on the size of the 2.0 binary distro. > > The last RC weighed in at 12mb/17mb gzip/zip. The large size is driven > > by the javadoc, the bundled site and the included javadoc jar. > > Uncompressed,

Re: [compress] ar/cpio and last modfied times

Stefan Bodewig a écrit : That's what I assume as well, I'm just hoping that anybody else would know for sure before I "fix" it. I created an archive with GNU ar to check the timestamp, I confirm it's in seconds. Emmanuel Bourg ---

Re: [math] 2.0 binary distro corpulence

Phil Steitz a écrit : > There have been a few comments on the size of the 2.0 binary distro. > The last RC weighed in at 12mb/17mb gzip/zip. The large size is driven > by the javadoc, the bundled site and the included javadoc jar. > Uncompressed, the breakdown is as follows > > apidocs

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 JSR-223 initial implementation added - what next?

sebb-2-2 wrote: > > Thread-safety: is the interpreter thread-safe? > Both the JexlEngine & UnifiedJEXL are intended to be thread-safe & shared. Besides usage of final fields in any applicable case, the (Expression, UnifiedJEXL.Expression, MethodMap & al) shared caches are synchronized for ge

Re: [VOTE] Release Math 2.0

Jörg Schaible a écrit : > Hi Luc, > > Luc Maisonobe wrote: > >> Luc Maisonobe a écrit : >>> Jörg Schaible a écrit : Hi Phil, tried the source package with my compiler zoo. Sun JDKs and icedtea6 take roughly 1 min to compile, test and build the jar. IBM JDK 1.6 takes about

Re: svn commit: r799874 - in /commons/proper/math/trunk: ./ src/test/java/ src/test/java/org/ src/test/java/org/apache/commons/math/random/ src/test/java/org/apache/commons/math/stat/data/ src/test/or

l...@apache.org a écrit : > Author: luc > Date: Sat Aug 1 14:44:08 2009 > New Revision: 799874 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=799874&view=rev > Log: > moved test java and resources directories for compliance with maven standard > directory layout In accordance with maven layout, this

Re: [compress] ar/cpio and last modfied times

On 2009-07-31, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Stefan Bodewig a écrit : >> I've started to implement a commons-compress based antlib over in Ant >> land >> > Nice! Do you plan to replace the archive/compress tasks in Ant with > the

Re: [JEXL] 2.0 JSR-223 initial implementation added - what next?

On 01/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:21 AM, sebb wrote: > > On 01/08/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:42 PM, sebb wrote: > >> > On 31/07/2009, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:54 PM, sebb wrote: > > > > >> >> > S

[math] 2.0 binary distro corpulence

There have been a few comments on the size of the 2.0 binary distro. The last RC weighed in at 12mb/17mb gzip/zip. The large size is driven by the javadoc, the bundled site and the included javadoc jar. Uncompressed, the breakdown is as follows apidocs .32mb site minus a

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-jelly-tags-jaxme (in module commons-jelly) failed

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-jaxme has an issue affecting its community integration

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-jelly-tags-fmt-test (in module commons-jelly) failed

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-fmt-test has an issue affecting its community integrat

Re: CANCELLED: [VOTE] Release Math 2.0

Luc Maisonobe wrote: Jörg Schaible a écrit : Hi Phil, one thing that also irritated me first was the directory layout. While we do not necessarily follow the Maven conventions always (mainly because of historical reasons) we have in case of math a mixture between Maven conventions and histor

Re: CANCELLED: [VOTE] Release Math 2.0

Jörg Schaible a écrit : > Hi Phil, > > one thing that also irritated me first was the directory layout. While we do > not necessarily follow the Maven conventions always (mainly because of > historical reasons) we have in case of math a mixture between Maven > conventions and history. > > Maven e

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-configuration-test (in module apache-commons) failed

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-configuration-test has an issue affecting its community integrati

Re: CANCELLED: [VOTE] Release Math 2.0

Hi Phil, one thing that also irritated me first was the directory layout. While we do not necessarily follow the Maven conventions always (mainly because of historical reasons) we have in case of math a mixture between Maven conventions and history. Maven encourages you to separate main and test