Matt Benson wrote at Dienstag, 12. Mai 2009 15:11:
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> From: Jörg Schaible
>> Subject: Re: [all] Core library dependencies [was COLLECTIONS 3.3
>> release] To: dev@commons.apache.org
>> Date: Tuesday,
Matt Benson wrote:
What [functor] needs is the confidence to stand up and say
"hey, come and use me, here's what I offer".
I somewhat resent the implication that I and others might be trying to buffalo
> [functor] into "proper" status, but I'm known for paranoia, so forgive me
> if I've read mo
James Carman wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
The 'functors' in [collections] and [functor] are very different:
I would argue that they're not inherently different, though. A
Predicate in collections-speak is the same thing as a UnaryPredicate
in functor-spea
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> The 'functors' in [collections] and [functor] are very different:
> http://commons.apache.org/collections/api-release/org/apache/commons/collections/package-summary.html
> http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/functor/apidocs/org/apache/comm
--- On Tue, 5/12/09, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> From: Stephen Colebourne
> Subject: Re: [all] Core library dependencies [was COLLECTIONS 3.3 release]
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 6:29 AM
>
> From: John Bollinger
> >
--- On Tue, 5/12/09, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> From: Jörg Schaible
> Subject: Re: [all] Core library dependencies [was COLLECTIONS 3.3 release]
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 7:54 AM
> John Bollinger wrote at Dienstag, 12.
> Mai 2009 14:19:
>
John Bollinger wrote at Dienstag, 12. Mai 2009 14:19:
>
>
> Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> The 'functors' in [collections] and [functor] are very different:
>
> Thanks for clearing that up. It obviously moots my argument as it applies
> to Collections / Functor, though I think the distinction be
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> The 'functors' in [collections] and [functor] are very different:
Thanks for clearing that up. It obviously moots my argument as it applies
to Collections / Functor, though I think the distinction between private
dependencies and public ones is still generally releva
From: John Bollinger
> Which is exactly why Collections should not copy Functor. Either Functor
> should be absorbed back into Collections, or Collections should have
> Functor as a dependency, for otherwise users must maintain separate
> functors for use with Collections and for other purposes.
James Carman wrote:
>On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> James Carman wrote at Montag, 11. Mai 2009 13:17:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible
>>> wrote:
I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In
this case it means m
On 11/05/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> > James Carman wrote at Montag, 11. Mai 2009 13:17:
> >
> >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible
> >> wrote:
> >>> I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> James Carman wrote at Montag, 11. Mai 2009 13:17:
>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible
>> wrote:
>>> I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In
>>> this case it means more or less to include comple
James Carman wrote at Montag, 11. Mai 2009 13:17:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>> I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In
>> this case it means more or less to include complete functor into
>> collections just for sake of no dependency.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In this
> case it means more or less to include complete functor into collections
> just for sake of no dependency. So, why had been functor created at all?
Functors can be
Hi Hen,
Henri Yandell wrote at Sonntag, 10. Mai 2009 03:27:
> +1 on the low level libraries having no dependencies. C+P is a fine
> way to share - we just, as Torsten points out, need to use smart ways
> of C+Ping.
>
> +1 to Stephen on backwards compat (which is probably surprising given
> how m
+1 on the low level libraries having no dependencies. C+P is a fine
way to share - we just, as Torsten points out, need to use smart ways
of C+Ping.
+1 to Stephen on backwards compat (which is probably surprising given
how much I argue with him on that subject).
I agree with it - but it frustrate
Yawn.
Personally, I can't believe how hard it is to understand that
dependencies for the core commons components are BAD. We're talking
about [lang], [collections], [io], [codec] and probably a few others.
For example, [functor] should be able to stand on its own two feet
without needing to m
On May 5, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
James Carman wrote at Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 03:12:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Matt Benson
wrote:
I feel differently--how many times do we need to duplicate code
that does
the same damned thing amongst the various components? For
Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Maybe it's also time to think about more fine grained artifacts. With Maven
> the dependency management is no longer that worse. We could have
>
> collections-x.y.jar
> collections-functor-x.y.jar
>
> with the latter providing the stuff of collections depending on funct
--- On Wed, 5/6/09, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> From: Torsten Curdt
> Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 2:47 AM
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 03:04, James
> Carman
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 5, 20
--- On Wed, 5/6/09, sebb wrote:
> From: sebb
> Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 6:22 AM
> On 06/05/2009, Matt Benson
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 5/5/09, s
On 06/05/2009, Matt Benson wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 5/5/09, sebb wrote:
>
> > From: sebb
>
> > Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
> > To: "Commons Developers List"
>
> > Date: Tuesday, May 5, 200
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 03:04, James Carman wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>> Using what strategy, Torsten?
>>
>> Not sure I understand the question. But let's try:
>
> I think the question was "using what existing
> technology/framework/tool/etc"? Something like u
James Carman wrote at Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 03:12:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>>
>> I feel differently--how many times do we need to duplicate code that does
>> the same damned thing amongst the various components? For example, we've
>> now added MethodUtils to [lang],
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
> I feel differently--how many times do we need to duplicate code that does the
> same damned thing amongst the various components? For example, we've now
> added MethodUtils to [lang], but [collections] has its own set of code
> supporting
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
>> Using what strategy, Torsten?
>
> Not sure I understand the question. But let's try:
I think the question was "using what existing
technology/framework/tool/etc"? Something like uberjar, perhaps?
---
> Using what strategy, Torsten?
Not sure I understand the question. But let's try:
In the source code "org.apache.commons.something" uses "org.apache.commons.else"
In the released jar "org.apache.commons.something" will use
"x.org.apache.commons.else"
All dependencies are getting in-lined and a
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Benson [mailto:gudnabr...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:36 PM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
>
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 5/5/09, Stephen Colebourne
> wrote:
>
>
--- On Tue, 5/5/09, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> From: Torsten Curdt
> Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 6:43 PM
> > I think its really important
> that [collections] has no dependencies. As part o
--- On Tue, 5/5/09, sebb wrote:
> From: sebb
> Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 6:02 PM
> On 05/05/2009, Matt Benson
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 4/30/09,
> I think its really important that [collections] has no dependencies. As part
> of that, I'd also suggest that [functor] shouldn't have dependencies.
>
> While I understand the arguments of just picking up another jar if your using
> it, of tools like maven, and of eating dog food, when push com
On 05/05/2009, Matt Benson wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 4/30/09, James Carman wrote:
>
> > From: James Carman
> > Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
> > To: "Commons Developers List"
> > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 12:18 AM
>
>
--- On Tue, 5/5/09, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> From: Stephen Colebourne
> Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 4:37 PM
>
> Matt Benson wrote:
> > --- On Tue, 5/5/09, James Carman
> wrot
Matt Benson wrote:
> --- On Tue, 5/5/09, James Carman wrote:
>> I'm trying to remember myself! :) I would think
>> collections, since
>> that's what this email was regarding. Is there a
>> branch that gets rid
>> of Transformer, Closure, and Predicate from collections and
>> instead
>> uses Fun
--- On Tue, 5/5/09, James Carman wrote:
> From: James Carman
> Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 12:35 PM
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Matt
> Benson
> wrote:
> > Notwithstanding
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> Notwithstanding the fact that I'm way behind on email, what is "it" above?
>
> [functor]'s generification has been complete for nearly a year.
> [collections] is done in the branch AFAIK. I simply haven't had time to
> figure out how to get sv
--- On Thu, 4/30/09, James Carman wrote:
> From: James Carman
> Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 12:18 AM
> I would love to see a collections
> version that is based on
> common
dds
>> generics, that is reason enough for me to help and upgrade our apps. Release
>> early, release often.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Dave Meikle [mailto:loo...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:09
uesday, April 28, 2009 11:09 AM
>> To: dev@commons.apache.org
>> Subject: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I know late last year Henri spoke about doing a 3.3 release of Collections
>> but I assume other commitments took over - this certainly kee
11:09 AM
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: [COLLECTIONS] 3.3 release
>
> Hi,
>
> I know late last year Henri spoke about doing a 3.3 release of Collections
> but I assume other commitments took over - this certainly keeps happening
> to
> me just now.
>
>
Hi,
I know late last year Henri spoke about doing a 3.3 release of Collections
but I assume other commitments took over - this certainly keeps happening to
me just now.
I see there are some new tickets that need some minor work, so was wondering
what are the current plans?
Apologises if I have m
41 matches
Mail list logo
