On 17 January 2014 00:57, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:24 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 16 January 2014 20:58, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Emmanuel Bourg
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Le 15/01/2014 14:04, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> > Uh, I want to go th
Online report :
https://continuum-ci.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=27814&projectId=286
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous Build: No previous build.
Started at: Fri 17 Jan 2014 01:21:47 +
Finished at: Fri 17 Jan 2014 01:25:23 +
Total time: 3m 35s
Build T
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:24 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 16 January 2014 20:58, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Emmanuel Bourg
> wrote:
> >
> >> Le 15/01/2014 14:04, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> >>
> >> > Uh, I want to go the other way around. See my use case.
> >>
> >> Why isn't
Sebb,
Please modify the POMs and whatever else as you see fit.
It sure would be nice to release 2.1.
Gary
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:22 PM, sebb wrote:
> At present, the VFS poms use the "apache-release" profile from the
> Apache pom, and override some bits of it that don't suit Commons.
>
>
On 16 January 2014 20:58, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
>> Le 15/01/2014 14:04, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>>
>> > Uh, I want to go the other way around. See my use case.
>>
>> Why isn't this suitable to your use case? You could write:
>>
>>factory
At present, the VFS poms use the "apache-release" profile from the
Apache pom, and override some bits of it that don't suit Commons.
However, this is also done by the Commons parent pom which provides
its own "release" profile.
This is not ideal as VFS uses a different process for releasing code
Le 16/01/2014 21:58, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> That would work. What is still not clean or OO is that toMap() means
> nothing when no headers are defined.
Well, so be it.
> I've split the record into a mapped record subclass here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CSV-104
>
> Thoughts?
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 15/01/2014 14:04, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
> > Uh, I want to go the other way around. See my use case.
>
> Why isn't this suitable to your use case? You could write:
>
>factory.create(record.toMap());
>
> and then remove the create(C
Hi all
compared to RC1 there is no code change only the Javadocs of the
_internal package are even more discouraging and the directory tree
insite the tarballs/zips should hold the correct version number.
Compress 1.7 RC2 is available for review here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/co
Le 15/01/2014 14:04, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> Uh, I want to go the other way around. See my use case.
Why isn't this suitable to your use case? You could write:
factory.create(record.toMap());
and then remove the create(CSVRecord) method with the duplicated
implementation.
What am I missing
Le 16/01/2014 07:04, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> Thoughts?
I don't mind improving how the internal state of CSVRecord is stored,
but that shouldn't cause a regression in the usability and make it
harder to access the record by key or by index.
I don't think the size of a CSVRecord is really an issu
-- Forwarded message --
From: lewis john mcgibbney
Date: 15 January 2014 16:41
Subject: ApacheCon NA 2014 Travel Assistance Applications now open!
To: p...@apache.org
Cc: travel-assista...@apache.org
To: p...@apache.org
Reply-To: travel-assista...@apache.org
Hi pmcs@,
The Trave
CSVRecordMap implements Map {
CSVRecordMap(CSVRecord record) {
}
}
Use the Map implementation to access the record in a Map-like way, use
the CSVRecord instance to access the record in a List-like way.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 1/16/2014 1:04 AM, Gar
13 matches
Mail list logo
