1.5+ time!
On Dec 2, 2007 1:45 AM, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My preference is to keep this release and branch of [lang] as 1.3
> compatible, primarily as part of the purpose of [lang] is to fill in JDK
> holes for old JDKs.
>
> I would then suggest that [lang] switches to Jav
BTW, since Jakarta commons is still in the pre-1.5 era, there is no
point to include TextIterable. So it has been a moot point in terms
of suggesting the inclusion of TextIterator in the commons library.
My bad.
Cheers,
Hanson Char
On 10/26/07, Hanson Char <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The TextIterable's LineIterator was originally an inner private
supporting class which is NOT meant to be used as a standalone class
but rather just an internal implementation, whereas the commons-io's
LineIterator is. There is a difference in intent.
Hanson Char
On 10/26/07, H
Well one difference at least is that the LineIterator implements the
Iterator interface whereas TextIterable implements the Iterable
interface.
An Iterable can take advantage of the 1.5 special for-loop syntax,
whereas an Iterator cannot.
Hanson Char
On 10/26/07, Niall Pemberton <[EM
releases.
I suspect there is not enough activity in the 1.5 branch because those
1.5 developers simply move somewhere else. The proposed experiment
above will provide evidence to the suspicion.
My 1c :)
Hanson Char
On 10/25/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Users use
rsonally, I simply won't program in any pre-1.5 environment.
My 2c.
Hanson Char
On 10/25/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Afaiu, the main reluctance is that no one has stepped up and started
> organizing it.
>
> I seem to recall there being a strong view
> 2) direct all effort and resources towards new development in 1.5; and
I mean 1.5+, of course.
On 10/25/07, Hanson Char <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Naive may I be, On the 1.5 issue, why not just have a big vote to
>
> 1) stop active development work on anything pre-1.5;
>
world.
Cheers,
Hanson Char
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s when one iterates
half way and decides to quite. But that is expected to be the less
common use case.
Cheers,
Hanson Char
On 10/25/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/25/07, Hanson Char <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Henri,
> >
> > LineIterato
On 2nd thought, encodings do need to be supported, and is now supported :)
http://hansonchar.blogspot.com/2007/10/textiterable.html
Hanson Char
On 10/25/07, Hanson Char <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henri,
>
> LineIterator is intended/designed to be a hidden implem
BTW, there already exists a public standalone class LineIterator:
http://commons.apache.org/io/apidocs/org/apache/commons/io/LineIterator.html
Same name but for different uses/intents :)
Hanson Char
On 10/25/07, Hanson Char <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henri,
>
> LineItera
closing of input stream, etc. go away at the higher level of
abstraction, aka TextIterable.
The 1.5 issue is, unfortunate, a real issue. I haven't programmed in
pre-1.5 Java for 2+ years now. Sorry for the folks who are not so
lucky.
Hanson Char
On 10/25/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTE
Would anyone be interested in including the proposed TextIterable in
the commons lang or commons io library ?
http://hansonchar.blogspot.com/2007/10/textiterable.html
Cheers,
Hanson Char
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
"Unable to enlist connection the transaction becuase transaction has
been Garbage Collected" ??
Do you mean:
"Unable to enlist connection because the transaction has been Garbage Collected"
?
Hanson Char
On 10/18/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Hi Bradford,
I thought it would be fun to implement one myself if no one else is
taking this up. Otherwise, I just play lazy :)
> Would you care to join me? ;-)
Sounds like fun too.
Hanson Char
On 10/15/07, Bradford Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, I was working on it
The current implementation of Percentile relies on sorting the
underlying array. There is much faster way like the use of Hoare's
partitioning that would take only linear instead of n*ln(n) time.
Has such improvement be considered before ? Any reason not to do so ?
Cheers,
Hanson
16 matches
Mail list logo
