Re: [Numbers] Java version? (Was: Scope?)

Okay. I will catch myself up on Lambdas and come back with a proposal for this class at that time. Eric On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > +1 on Java 8. > > Gary > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Gilles > wrote: > > > [...] what JDK version do we target? > >> > >> I'd go

Re: [Numbers] Java version? (Was: Scope?)

+1 on Java 8. Gary On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Gilles wrote: > [...] what JDK version do we target? >> >> I'd go for Java8, in the hope to revive interest in Commons from an >> audience that might be put off by the "no fun" of older and soon >> unsupported JVM. >> > > > Gilles > > > --

[Numbers] Java version? (Was: Scope?)

[...] what JDK version do we target? I'd go for Java8, in the hope to revive interest in Commons from an audience that might be put off by the "no fun" of older and soon unsupported JVM. Gilles - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-

Re: [Text] New feature: Parsing and formatting numbers (Was: Consider making the project "multimodule")

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Gilles wrote: > >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:46:25 +0100, Gilles wrote: >> Hi. >> >> I think that it would be worth modularizing the [Text] component. >> I only had quick glances, but it seems that some codes are more >> generic than others (that e.g. focused on HTM

[Text] New feature: Parsing and formatting numbers (Was: Consider making the project "multimodule")

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:46:25 +0100, Gilles wrote: Hi. I think that it would be worth modularizing the [Text] component. I only had quick glances, but it seems that some codes are more generic than others (that e.g. focused on HTML entities). The scope of [Text] could obviously encompass functio

Re: [Text] Consider making the project "multimodule"

Le 30/01/2017 à 15:16, Rob Tompkins a écrit : > I lean towards going with a single module out of simplicity +1 Emmanuel Bourg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h..

Re: JCS jcache examples specifically with spring caching

Not sure with spring but we have users in prod yes (we already got feedback through tomee list / IRC / privately) Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github

Re: JCS jcache examples specifically with spring caching

is there anyone that has used the Jcache impl of JCS? On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Tim Cronin wrote: > I'm trying to leverage Spring caching using jcs cache > the javadocs show only ctor for the JCSCachingManager. > https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-jcs/commons- > jcs-jcache/apidoc

Re: [Text] Consider making the project "multimodule"

On Jan 30, 2017 6:16 AM, "Rob Tompkins" wrote: > On Jan 30, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Gilles wrote: > > Hi. > > I think that it would be worth modularizing the [Text] component. > I only had quick glances, but it seems that some codes are more > generic than others (that e.g. focused on HTML entities).

Re: [Text] Consider making the project "multimodule"

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Gilles wrote: > > Hi. > > I think that it would be worth modularizing the [Text] component. > I only had quick glances, but it seems that some codes are more > generic than others (that e.g. focused on HTML entities). I lean towards going with a single module out

[VOTE] Release Commons Text 1.0-beta-1 based on RC4

Hello all, This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Text 1.0-beta-1 (from RC4). Tag name: commons-text-1.0-beta-1-RC4 (signature can be checked from git using 'git tag -v') Tag URL: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-text.git;a=commit;h=65e4314fbd6c3a8f5c248d07a4ccffc

Re: RDF commons testing

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:20:46 +, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > BTW - in your approach, would it work to run the tests out of the box > from an IDE like Eclipse? I think that is quite important so Commons RDF > can be maintainable by many people in Apache Commons. They did run out of the box i

Re: [Numbers] Scope?

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:40:06 +0100, Eric Barnhill wrote: I agree the solvers don't seem to be in the scope. Let's agree to defer the decision. :-) The MathArrays are a great idea but could use some rethinking. Fine thne. Could you please start a new thread with some of the things to rethink

[Text] Consider making the project "multimodule"

Hi. I think that it would be worth modularizing the [Text] component. I only had quick glances, but it seems that some codes are more generic than others (that e.g. focused on HTML entities). The scope of [Text] could obviously encompass functionality for which there isn't any code yet. An examp

Re: [Numbers] Scope?

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:30:20 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 30/01/2017 à 12:08, Gilles a écrit : Ideally, it should be another light-weight component (because solvers are used in so many areas). This thread is about if (and how) we can try and stretch the scope a little, so as to group sever

Re: [Numbers] Scope?

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:51 PM, sebb wrote: > > > Also, there are a lot of basic array-wise operations that might benefit > > from inclusion. To pick an example at random, element-by-element cosine. > In > > fact I already have a whole library of these (very simple) methods for up > > to 3 dime

Re: [Numbers] Scope?

On 30 January 2017 at 11:40, Eric Barnhill wrote: > I agree the solvers don't seem to be in the scope. > > The MathArrays are a great idea but could use some rethinking. > > First of all there are leftover references to classes like Field that have > disappeared with the larger math framework and

Re: [Numbers] Scope?

I agree the solvers don't seem to be in the scope. The MathArrays are a great idea but could use some rethinking. First of all there are leftover references to classes like Field that have disappeared with the larger math framework and these should go. Also, there are a lot of basic array-wise o

Re: [Numbers] Scope?

Le 30/01/2017 à 12:08, Gilles a écrit : > Ideally, it should be another light-weight component (because solvers > are used in so many areas). > > This thread is about if (and how) we can try and stretch the scope a > little, so as to group several basic utilities in a single component. I'd prefe

Re: [Numbers] Scope?

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:49:49 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Hi, Shouldn't [numbers] focus only on number structures (fractions, complex) and the basic operations on them? Strictly speaking, yes; but I'm trying to fit more in it than just the obvious, so as to not require many new components (a

Re: [Numbers] Scope?

Hi. On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:10:27 +0100, Benedikt Ritter wrote: Hello Gilles, Am 30.01.2017 um 02:17 schrieb Gilles : Hi. Anyone has a statement about it? Functionalities that are candidates to be moved from "Math" to "Numbers": * FastMath I just thought, maybe FastMath would fit into Com

Re: RDF commons testing

Thanks for the suggestion, Claude! I agree with Stian, do a PR with how the test suite would change, so then we are discussing about more concrete things. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:08:27 +1100, Peter Ansell > wrote: > > Hi Claude, > >

Re: RDF commons testing

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:08:27 +1100, Peter Ansell wrote: > Hi Claude, > Abstract test classes are working well for Commons RDF so far. Others > may benefit from your solution, so feel free to suggest the approach > to others who may be interested in exploring it. I would not dismiss Claude's sugge