+1. Seems to fit a RegexUtils.wildcardToRegex type method.
Note that IO has a Wildcard concept already, so ideally it would match
the same schema.
Hen
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 6:13 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 9 October 2010 12:33, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> No, the wildcard is used for a database sea
I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC3. The main changes since RC2 are
improvements to some tests which were causing intermittent failures in
Gump & Continuum and JavaDoc improvements. For details about Continuum
builds/failures, see:
http://people.apache.org/~niallp/io-2.0/IOFailures.html
The dist
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Hi Niall,
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>
I have prepared Commons IO 2.0 RC2 for review (rc1 never went past the
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Check. I wonder how sun tests the jre for this...
>
> Yeah. I have also some test where I'd like to minimize the JVM's available
> memory just for the test
You can configure the maven-surefire-plugin to limit mem
It seems to be working better now. Continuum ran 23 builds last night
without a fail. I was hoping to do 30, but the machine went down.
Niall
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM, sebb wrote:
> The intention is not to cause OOM, but to cause the JVM to flush the
> references by reducing the free memo
Gary Gregory wrote:
> Check. I wonder how sun tests the jre for this...
Yeah. I have also some test where I'd like to minimize the JVM's available
memory just for the test
- Jörg
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...
Check. I wonder how sun tests the jre for this...
Gary
On Oct 9, 2010, at 3:55, "sebb" wrote:
> The intention is not to cause OOM, but to cause the JVM to flush the
> references by reducing the free memory.
>
> On 9 October 2010 08:03, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Random thought:
>>
>> Instead of
Hi Phil,
thank you, I've been using pool for a long time so now that I've the
chance to contribute is for me the natural way to get back something
to the community :)
Have a nice day,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Phil Steit
On 10/8/10 12:24 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
Hi Phil,
I do have some spare time and I'd like working on POOL-83 if someone
else hasn't already started, I checked out the code and did some
experiments, if everybody agree I could start committing, just let me
know.
First, please do jump in! And don
On 9 October 2010 12:33, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> No, the wildcard is used for a database search. Find me all names
> matching "Foo*". This is not for [io].
But where do humans get the idea that * and ? are wildcards?
>
> The oro code does look reasonable I'd say.
Agreed, it could be adapted
Done!
Daemon-177 -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ManageAttachments.jspa?id=12476921
The first patch is my first stab at removing the isAvailable check, the
second one takes it further by adding an init exception which is caught
during init and fails with a call to fail, rather than just d
No, the wildcard is used for a database search. Find me all names
matching "Foo*". This is not for [io].
The oro code does look reasonable I'd say.
Stephen
On 9 October 2010 12:25, sebb wrote:
> What does the regex represent? A filename?
>
> If so, then maybe the code belongs in IO rather than
What does the regex represent? A filename?
If so, then maybe the code belongs in IO rather than Lang.
Also, filename globbing is not consistent across OSes.
On 8 October 2010 15:32, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Human users enter wildcards * and ? (because regex is too complex). In
> my case, I'm
Hi folks,
assuming that "standard wildcard" is actually globbing I came around of
an globbing to regexp converter somewhere - I will have a look
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
On 10/8/10 4:32 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Human users enter wildcards * and ? (because regex is too complex). In
my
The intention is not to cause OOM, but to cause the JVM to flush the
references by reducing the free memory.
On 9 October 2010 08:03, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Random thought:
>
> Instead of trying to cause an OutOfMemoryException, how about throwing this
> exception ourselves from a (test) subclass
Random thought:
Instead of trying to cause an OutOfMemoryException, how about throwing this
exception ourselves from a (test) subclass of the IO class in that we are
trying to break?
Gary
-Original Message-
From: nia...@apache.org [mailto:nia...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2
16 matches
Mail list logo
