If you want to drive into this, you may want to review the LogMF and LogSF
companions and related discussion in the archives.
The cost of the array construction implicit in a vararg call and the cost of
boxing scalars can dwarf the cost of determining whether to log or not.
Unfortunately those
I'm OK with all that but it should be documented someplace. Yet another
thing that makes our releases a PITA :-(
Gary
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:44 PM, sebb wrote:
> Deletion of the previous release should not happen until the new
> release has been announced.
> In turn, the announcement should n
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:41 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 21 November 2014 at 17:34, wrote:
> > Author: ggregory
> > Date: Fri Nov 21 17:34:41 2014
> > New Revision: 1640967
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1640967
> > Log:
> > Released Apache Commons CSV 1.1.
> >
> > Modified:
> > commons/proper
Deletion of the previous release should not happen until the new
release has been announced.
In turn, the announcement should not be sent until at least1 day after
the new release has been published to allow mirrors time to catch up.
On 21 November 2014 at 17:25, wrote:
> Author: ggregory
> Date
On 21 November 2014 at 17:34, wrote:
> Author: ggregory
> Date: Fri Nov 21 17:34:41 2014
> New Revision: 1640967
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1640967
> Log:
> Released Apache Commons CSV 1.1.
>
> Modified:
> commons/proper/csv/trunk/pom.xml
>
> Modified: commons/proper/csv/trunk/pom.xml
>
Hi Christian,
one of those unlikely users of Avalon is the Turbine framework but I can lend a
hand with AvalonLogger :-)
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
> On 01 Dec 2014, at 19:17, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 18:04, sebb wrote:
>> On 1 December 2014 at 09:28, Christian G
On 1 December 2014 at 18:17, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 18:04, sebb wrote:
>> On 1 December 2014 at 09:28, Christian Grobmeier
>> wrote:
>> > That aside, I would do the following:
>> >
>> > - jdk support for at least >7 (varargs need 5, but MessageFormat 7)
>
> Just saw
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 18:04, sebb wrote:
> On 1 December 2014 at 09:28, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
> > That aside, I would do the following:
> >
> > - jdk support for at least >7 (varargs need 5, but MessageFormat 7)
Just saw MessageFormat is even available in jdk 5. So I would opt for
this
see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-438
I have the changes at https://svn.codehaus.org/mojo/tags/vfs-1.0/vfs-smb
for reference only, it does not get pushed to Maven Central
-D
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Israel,
>
>
> The sandbox is not released as a jar f
Hi, just reading through the list i'll come up with some comments below
Am 01.12.2014 um 18:04 schrieb sebb:
On 1 December 2014 at 09:28, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 00:50, sebb wrote:
But it would be interesting to know why the Spring dev thought a new
version would b
On 1 December 2014 at 09:28, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 00:50, sebb wrote:
>> But it would be interesting to know why the Spring dev thought a new
>> version would be useful.
>
> The team seemed to discuss moving to slf4j, but he mentioned they were
> happy not doing it s
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 14:31, Gary Gregory wrote:
> FWIW, I think a new version of CL would be 'fun' if it included support
> for
> Log4j 2...
Agreed. :)
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
> > MessageFormat? WRT Log4j 2: So there's another thing to compare
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 13:57, Gary Gregory wrote:
> MessageFormat? WRT Log4j 2: So there's another thing to compare WRT to
> performance and String.format and our own {} support... any thoughts
> on that?
No, didn't think about this yet. I just pass on what I was told without
judgement for now
FWIW, I think a new version of CL would be 'fun' if it included support for
Log4j 2...
Gary
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> MessageFormat? WRT Log4j 2: So there's another thing to compare WRT to
> performance and String.format and our own {} support... any thoughts on tha
MessageFormat? WRT Log4j 2: So there's another thing to compare WRT to
performance and String.format and our own {} support... any thoughts
on that?
Gary
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 00:50, sebb wrote:
> > But it would be interesting to k
Israel,
The sandbox is not released as a jar for licensing reasons IIRC. You have
to check it out of SVN and build it yourself.
Gary
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Israel Malachi
wrote:
> Hello all!
> I'm writing a program that uses the VFS (2.0) so I could manage SFTP and
> samba connection
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014, at 00:50, sebb wrote:
> But it would be interesting to know why the Spring dev thought a new
> version would be useful.
The team seemed to discuss moving to slf4j, but he mentioned they were
happy not doing it since the learned about bc breaks within slf4j
versions. In general
On 01/12/2014 00:42, Bruno P. Kinoshita wrote:
> Hello Benedikt!
> I guess I'm being too cautious to commit or work on issues in other
> components :)
Don't worry about it. Everything at Commons is CTR (commit-then-review).
The worse thing that can happen is that you have to revert a commit.
It
18 matches
Mail list logo
