On 17 August 2011 13:58, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> On 17 August 2011 13:44, Matthew Pocock wrote:
>> It seems to me that the Encoder/Decoder interfaces are screaming out to be
>> generified, and the current sub-interfaces should be removed unless there's
>> a compelling reason for them e.g. if
Hi All:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> On 17 August 2011 13:44, Matthew Pocock
> wrote:
> > It seems to me that the Encoder/Decoder interfaces are screaming out to
> be
> > generified, and the current sub-interfaces should be removed unless
> there's
> > a compellin
Hi Matthew,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Matthew Pocock <
turingatemyhams...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Before I start, I'd love to see a binary compatible codec release with the
> Beider Morse code in, and for generics to be dealt with in a later release.
>
I think this is where we are goi
On 17 August 2011 13:58, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> The Object encode(Object) approach is still valid if the primary use
> case of the interface is for frameworks. In a framework, objects are
> generally treated as of type Object, so the API is fine. User code
> should use concrete versions.
>
On 17 August 2011 13:44, Matthew Pocock wrote:
> It seems to me that the Encoder/Decoder interfaces are screaming out to be
> generified, and the current sub-interfaces should be removed unless there's
> a compelling reason for them e.g. if they add extra methods. It is no
> hardship in your code
Hi,
Before I start, I'd love to see a binary compatible codec release with the
Beider Morse code in, and for generics to be dealt with in a later release.
What I'm not quite sure about is why introducing generics will necessarily
cause breaking changes.
It seems to me that the Encoder/Decoder int
On Aug 16, 2011, at 23:47, sebb wrote:
> On 17 August 2011 04:30, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:14 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> FYI:
>>
>> What would need to be reversed out of trunk for a 1.6 binary compatible with
>> 1.5 is:
>>
>> [image: Error]Method 'public StringEncoder
On 17 August 2011 04:30, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:14 PM, sebb wrote:
...
> FYI:
>
> What would need to be reversed out of trunk for a 1.6 binary compatible with
> 1.5 is:
>
> [image: Error]Method 'public StringEncoderComparator()' has been removed
> org.apache.commons.co
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:14 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 17 August 2011 01:49, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 2011, at 19:40, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 August 2011 00:20, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 18:01, sebb wrote:
> >>>
> On 16 August 2011 22:53, Gary Gregory wrote:
On 17 August 2011 01:49, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 19:40, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 17 August 2011 00:20, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 18:01, sebb wrote:
>>>
On 16 August 2011 22:53, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Julius Davies
> w
On Aug 16, 2011, at 19:40, sebb wrote:
> On 17 August 2011 00:20, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 18:01, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 August 2011 22:53, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Julius Davies
wrote:
>> Please see the recent discussion on a
On 17 August 2011 00:20, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 18:01, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 16 August 2011 22:53, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Julius Davies
>>> wrote:
>>>
> Please see the recent discussion on adding generics to [codec] where I
> propose "
On Aug 16, 2011, at 18:01, sebb wrote:
> On 16 August 2011 22:53, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Julius Davies wrote:
>>
Please see the recent discussion on adding generics to [codec] where I
propose " encode()"
Gary
>>>
>>> Hi, Gary!!!
>>>
>>> I
On 16 August 2011 22:53, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Julius Davies wrote:
>
>> > Please see the recent discussion on adding generics to [codec] where I
>> > propose " encode()"
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
>>
>> Hi, Gary!!!
>>
>> I thought of replying to that thread, but I though
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Julius Davies wrote:
> > Please see the recent discussion on adding generics to [codec] where I
> > propose " encode()"
> >
> > Gary
> >
>
> Hi, Gary!!!
>
> I thought of replying to that thread, but I thought it's kinda rude to
> hijack a thread like that.
>
> What
On 16 August 2011 22:23, Julius Davies wrote:
>> Please see the recent discussion on adding generics to [codec] where I
>> propose " encode()"
>>
>> Gary
>>
>
> Hi, Gary!!!
>
> I thought of replying to that thread, but I thought it's kinda rude to
> hijack a thread like that.
>
> What would be the
> Please see the recent discussion on adding generics to [codec] where I
> propose " encode()"
>
> Gary
>
Hi, Gary!!!
I thought of replying to that thread, but I thought it's kinda rude to
hijack a thread like that.
What would be the pros/cons of just typing "svn remove Encoder.java"
and "svn re
Hi Julius!
I am not a fan of these interfaces because they are not typed, "Object
encode(Object)" is too vague now that Generics have been an option for
years.
The interfaces are a good idea if you want to process the same data with
similar but different codecs and use the same code. So there is
Hi,
What do people think of the Encoder / Decoder interface in
commons-codec? Do people use it?
I know in my own usage patterns of commons-codec, I always go straight
for the concrete class that I want, and I never make use of the
Encoder / Decoder interface.
I'm in grad school right now, and
19 matches
Mail list logo
