On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:33 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 August 2011 19:38, Matthew Pocock wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As those of you who've been following the CODEC-125 ticket will know, with
>> Greg's help I've got a port of the beider morse phonetic
>> matching (bmpm) algorithm in as a string encoder. A
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:42 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 August 2011 16:08, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:35 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 12 August 2011 15:29, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:54 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 August 2011 14:33, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
On 12 August 2011 16:08, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:35 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 August 2011 15:29, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:54 AM, sebb wrote:
On 12 August 2011 14:33, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Can we proceed like so?
>
> - I'll save
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:35 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 August 2011 15:29, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:54 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 12 August 2011 14:33, Gary Gregory wrote:
Can we proceed like so?
- I'll save my generified codec in an svn branch ASAP.
- we c
On 12 August 2011 15:29, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:54 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 August 2011 14:33, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> Can we proceed like so?
>>>
>>> - I'll save my generified codec in an svn branch ASAP.
>>> - we can discuss that and get the best design
>>> - is it bin
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:54 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 August 2011 14:33, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Can we proceed like so?
>>
>> - I'll save my generified codec in an svn branch ASAP.
>> - we can discuss that and get the best design
>> - is it binary compatible?
>
> Or can it be made binary-compatibl
On 12 August 2011 14:54, sebb wrote:
>> We have lang3 and digester3 under our belts now with new packages. Are
>> we going to change policy again? I hope not. We sure spent a lot of
>> time on this and thought we made a sane decision as a community.
>> Joda-time is its own world can do what it wan
On 12 August 2011 14:33, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Can we proceed like so?
>
> - I'll save my generified codec in an svn branch ASAP.
> - we can discuss that and get the best design
> - is it binary compatible?
Or can it be made binary-compatible without excessive compromises?
> - if not, which is m
Can we proceed like so?
- I'll save my generified codec in an svn branch ASAP.
- we can discuss that and get the best design
- is it binary compatible?
- if not, which is my current view, then package is codec2
We have lang3 and digester3 under our belts now with new packages. Are
we going to cha
On 12 August 2011 11:19, sebb wrote:
>> - Removing deprecated methods does not require a package name change
>
> How so?
>
> If there are any external references to them in an application that
> cannot be removed, then both old and new jars will need to be
> deployed.
> Which cannot be done safely
On 12 August 2011 08:37, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> I've just noticed this thread.
>
> I'd like to ask those involved to consider if they can find a route
> where the package name and group do *not* change.
>
> - Changing to JDK 5 does not require a a package name change (generics
> are backward
I've just noticed this thread.
I'd like to ask those involved to consider if they can find a route
where the package name and group do *not* change.
- Changing to JDK 5 does not require a a package name change (generics
are backward compatible if the erased signatures don't change).
- Removing de
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:10 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 August 2011 20:56, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Hello All!
>>
>> Topic 1: Housekeeping: package name and POM.
>>
>> The next codec release out of trunk will be major release labeled 2.0,
>> the current release is 1.5.
>>
>> In trunk, I've removed dep
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:10 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 August 2011 20:56, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Hello All!
>>
>> Topic 1: Housekeeping: package name and POM.
>>
>> The next codec release out of trunk will be major release labeled 2.0,
>> the current release is 1.5.
>>
>> In trunk, I've removed dep
On 11 August 2011 20:55, Matthew Pocock wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
>
>> The reason I raised the issue was that the API seems to be currently
>> in a state of flux.
>>
>
> The BMPM code has not appeared in a previous release. It is a discrete
> addition that doesn't alter any existing code, and as far as
On 11 August 2011 20:56, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> Topic 1: Housekeeping: package name and POM.
>
> The next codec release out of trunk will be major release labeled 2.0,
> the current release is 1.5.
>
> In trunk, I've removed deprecated methods and the project now requires
> Java 5. T
Hello All!
Topic 1: Housekeeping: package name and POM.
The next codec release out of trunk will be major release labeled 2.0,
the current release is 1.5.
In trunk, I've removed deprecated methods and the project now requires
Java 5. This means 2.0 will not be a drop-in binary compatible release
Hi Sebb,
> The reason I raised the issue was that the API seems to be currently
> in a state of flux.
>
The BMPM code has not appeared in a previous release. It is a discrete
addition that doesn't alter any existing code, and as far as I know,
currently no 3rd party code relies upon it. Right no
On 11 August 2011 19:38, Matthew Pocock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As those of you who've been following the CODEC-125 ticket will know, with
> Greg's help I've got a port of the beider morse phonetic
> matching (bmpm) algorithm in as a string encoder. As far as I can tell, it's
> ready for people to use an
Hi,
As those of you who've been following the CODEC-125 ticket will know, with
Greg's help I've got a port of the beider morse phonetic
matching (bmpm) algorithm in as a string encoder. As far as I can tell, it's
ready for people to use and abuse. It ideally needs more test-case words,
but to the
20 matches
Mail list logo
