On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2018-05-02, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>
> > So far I didn't think the current API is so horrible.
>
> I wouldn't call it horrible.
>
> My ideas about things that should be different and have been epressed in
> the compress-2.0 branch I started
On 2018-05-02, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> So far I didn't think the current API is so horrible.
I wouldn't call it horrible.
My ideas about things that should be different and have been epressed in
the compress-2.0 branch I started years ago. To me the most important
things I'd want to change are
*
On 2018-05-02, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I'm all for providing a high-level API. That's fine.
> I would like a high-level statement first though concerning choices we have
> or have not considered.
> - The high level API is Commons VFS. Why? Why not?
> - The high level API is Java IO File System. W
On 2 May 2018 at 09:01, Gary Gregory wrote:
> - The high level API is Commons VFS. Why? Why not?
> - The high level API is Java IO File System. Why? Why not?
>
This really gets at what I've been thinking. Compress and VFS are strongly
related, and both could likely benefit from adopting the Jav
On 2 May 2018 at 08:41, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> It's a bit more complex than that. A hypothetical commons-sevenz would
> stil have an optional dependency on commons-lzma which then has a real
> depedendency on XZ for Java. The 7z code doesn't need XZ for Java if the
> archive you want to read onl
>
> > Given that you are currently the main person working on Compress I'd say
> -
> > whatever you are OK with.
> > But you don't really sound super confident/happy about the API -
> > otherwise you might not have written this email :)
>
> TBH I've written this email because my compass for which d
I'm all for providing a high-level API. That's fine.
I would like a high-level statement first though concerning choices we have
or have not considered.
- The high level API is Commons VFS. Why? Why not?
- The high level API is Java IO File System. Why? Why not?
Gary
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:5
On 2018-05-01, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/commons-compress/blob/master/
> src/main/java/org/apache/commons/compress/archivers/Archiver.java
> Is tiny compared the whole lots of
> https://github.com/apache/commons-compress/tree/master/
> src/main/java/org/apache/commons/com
On 2018-05-01, Matt Sicker wrote:
> On 1 May 2018 at 12:23, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> That smell must be something else ;)
>> Just have a look at the dependencies
>> https://github.com/apache/commons-compress/blob/master/pom.xml#L69
> Right, I see several dependencies marked "optional" which m
On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:05:23 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
I was starting to fiddle with [parent] version 46 with [rng] and
stumbled across the seemingly legitimate japicmp failure. @Gilles -
any thoughts here? If it is indeed correct I would think those would
be BC incompatible changes between 1.0 a
10 matches
Mail list logo
