2013/4/9 Gary Gregory
> WRT org.apache.commons.csv.CSVFormat.CSVFormat(char, Character, Quote,
> Character, Character, boolean, boolean, String, String, String[])
>
> There does not seem to be a good reason why this is not public. The only
> argument I've heard is that some people do not like to
2013/4/8 Emmanuel Bourg
> Le 08/04/2013 22:39, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
> > But that's the price for immutability for some of these objects.
>
> Not sure, we already achieved immutability last year without paying this
> price:
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/csv/trunk/src/mai
2013/4/9 Emmanuel Bourg
> Le 08/04/2013 22:07, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
>
> > I have run the PerformanceTest with each implementation 3 times and can
> not
> > see any significant change in the performance.
>
> I ran my own performance test with Java 6 and Java 7, in client and
> server mode, an
WRT org.apache.commons.csv.CSVFormat.CSVFormat(char, Character, Quote,
Character, Character, boolean, boolean, String, String, String[])
There does not seem to be a good reason why this is not public. The only
argument I've heard is that some people do not like to use long ctors. But
so what? If w
I would be ok with making the parser and format ctors public. What
else? I agree that we should not force force folks into an API pattern
but here it's not a big API at least.
Gary
On Apr 8, 2013, at 17:02, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 08/04/2013 22:39, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
>> But that's the
Le 08/04/2013 22:07, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
> I have run the PerformanceTest with each implementation 3 times and can not
> see any significant change in the performance.
I ran my own performance test with Java 6 and Java 7, in client and
server mode, and I didn't see any regression.
Emmanuel
Le 08/04/2013 22:07, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
> I have run the PerformanceTest with each implementation 3 times and can not
> see any significant change in the performance.
Did you run the test unmodified? If I'm not mistaken it doesn't
currently call the method you modified, so the performance
Le 08/04/2013 22:39, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> But that's the price for immutability for some of these objects.
Not sure, we already achieved immutability last year without paying this
price:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/csv/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/csv/CSVFormat.j
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 07/04/2013 20:14, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
>
> > where are we standing with this? I see that Gary has added parse(Reader)
> to
> > the Builder as a short cut. We were talking about making the builder less
> > visible. How do you feel abo
Le 07/04/2013 20:14, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
> where are we standing with this? I see that Gary has added parse(Reader) to
> the Builder as a short cut. We were talking about making the builder less
> visible. How do you feel about renaming the newBuilder() methods to
> newFormat()?
Sure why no
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Daniel Gredler
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
>
>
> I just went through an exercise where I was experimenting with the
> current Commons CSV snapshot, to see how it might fit into some existing
> code where we build CSV files manually. All of the code involved
> creating CSV f
2013/4/8 Benedikt Ritter
>
>
>
> 2013/4/8 Emmanuel Bourg
>
>> Le 08/04/2013 20:15, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
>>
>> > One thing I'd like to do is convert the ArrayOutOfBoundsExpcetion that
>> may
>> > be thrown from get(String) into something that is a bit more expressive
>> in
>> > the context o
2013/4/8 Emmanuel Bourg
> Le 08/04/2013 20:15, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
>
> > One thing I'd like to do is convert the ArrayOutOfBoundsExpcetion that
> may
> > be thrown from get(String) into something that is a bit more expressive
> in
> > the context of CSVRecords. How do you feel about this? T
Le 08/04/2013 20:15, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
> One thing I'd like to do is convert the ArrayOutOfBoundsExpcetion that may
> be thrown from get(String) into something that is a bit more expressive in
> the context of CSVRecords. How do you feel about this? There should be no
> impact on performan
2013/4/8 Gary Gregory
> Like what? IllegalArgumentException would seem OK.
>
Agreed, I'll add that to trunk.
Benedikt
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Benedikt Ritter
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Gary has already added the isConsistent() method to CSVRecord to give
> users
> > a
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Mirko Raner wrote:
> Well, it would have been nice if the combined encoder/decoder interface
> from CODEC-158 could make it into the release, but it seems like we're
> stalled on that issue right now.
> I'm happy to discuss this feature for the next release. I'm cu
Hi,
Gary has already added the isConsistent() method to CSVRecord to give users
a possibility to check if a CSVRecord's values have the same length as the
headers array. Are we satisfied with this solution for CSV-96 [1]?
One thing I'd like to do is convert the ArrayOutOfBoundsExpcetion that may
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:33:11 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 8 April 2013 13:22, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:52:25 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 8 April 2013 08:14, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Hi Gary (and Sebb who had similar concerns),
Le 08/04/2013 00:33, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> I would only go back
On 8 April 2013 13:22, Gilles wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:52:25 +0100, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 8 April 2013 08:14, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gary (and Sebb who had similar concerns),
>>>
>>> Le 08/04/2013 00:33, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>>> > I would only go back and bother with creating a bra
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:52:25 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 8 April 2013 08:14, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Hi Gary (and Sebb who had similar concerns),
Le 08/04/2013 00:33, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> I would only go back and bother with creating a branch when it is
> needed. As for a repackage I would only do
On 8 April 2013 08:14, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Hi Gary (and Sebb who had similar concerns),
>
> Le 08/04/2013 00:33, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> > I would only go back and bother with creating a branch when it is
> > needed. As for a repackage I would only do that if I knew for certain
> > that I wan
2013/4/8 sebb :
> On 6 April 2013 13:02, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
>> Oh read here http://commons.staging.apache.org/site-publish.html
>>
>> Use mvn clean site-deploy which is different :-)
>>
>
> Huh?
Oh I wanted to say site:deploy != site-deploy (the doc refered
previously to site:deploy )
>
> What
Hi Gary (and Sebb who had similar concerns),
Le 08/04/2013 00:33, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> I would only go back and bother with creating a branch when it is
> needed. As for a repackage I would only do that if I knew for certain
> that I want to break BC.
Yes, we need (not want) to break compatib
23 matches
Mail list logo
