On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> If the same performance gain can be can be achieved with TN's
> suggestion, lets go with that. It sure sounds simpler. I can
> appreciate that you've put effort into this but that should not be the
> driver for acceptance. Can we try that firs
Hi all,
Mark and I had discussed this offline some time ago, to work through the
ramifications. I think his proposal is safe. For example:
org.apache.tlp.util.SecurityUtil {
//simplified
public static Class loadClass(String classname) { return
Class.forName(classname); }
}
Note that Secur
If the same performance gain can be can be achieved with TN's
suggestion, lets go with that. It sure sounds simpler. I can
appreciate that you've put effort into this but that should not be the
driver for acceptance. Can we try that first? We've also worked hard
to have common code for B32 and 64,
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> How does this affect the B32 code and the common code w B64?
>
> Gary
>
I tried to make sure the patch perturbed as little of the existing
code as possible. There are no changes to the B32 or shared logic.
Here's the colored diff of the on
How does this affect the B32 code and the common code w B64?
Gary
On Feb 18, 2013, at 15:26, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 02/18/2013 08:14 PM, jul...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: julius
>> Date: Mon Feb 18 19:14:31 2013
>> New Revision: 1447443
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1447443
>> Log:
>
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Thomas Neidhart
wrote:
> On 02/18/2013 08:14 PM, jul...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: julius
>> Date: Mon Feb 18 19:14:31 2013
>> New Revision: 1447443
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1447443
>> Log:
>> CODEC-166 - Base64 could be faster.
>>
>> Added:
>>
>>
On 02/18/2013 08:14 PM, jul...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: julius
> Date: Mon Feb 18 19:14:31 2013
> New Revision: 1447443
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1447443
> Log:
> CODEC-166 - Base64 could be faster.
>
> Added:
>
> commons/proper/codec/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/codec/bin
Ah ok looks like I missed some detail here, I'll give another review
later - keep up the good work!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrot
Hallo Bene,
don't worry, the good thing is we have an SCM that allows us reviewing
modifications, so we can discuss about modifications :)
Alles gute!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On
Hallo Bene,
very good, Danke Shön!
best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@com
Hi Simo,
IIUC exclusions can only be defined for a hole checker. But
allowUndeclaredRTE is a property of the JavadocMethod checker. I don't see
how I can change the value of the property with an exclusion filter. So I
had to copy the hole config just to change that one property (I documented
this
Ciao Simo,
thanks a lot! I adopted the -tags from BU1. I was wondering why they are
used in that way in BU1. Should have asked the ML. I'll change this tonight!
Benedikt
2013/2/17 Simone Tripodi
> unneeded, I suggest you to read our mate Stephen's blog about that:
> http://blog.joda.org/2012/
12 matches
Mail list logo
