On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2011, at 7:10 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Phil Steitz
> wrote:
> >
> >> Lots of applications depend on the 1.x branch as it is now.
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > What does it mean for an ap
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 13/12/2011 14:25, Ted Dunning wrote:
> > Frankly, I think that the lack of generics in commons components drives
> > away more users than having java 1.4 compatibility retains.
>
> I disagree in this case.
>
> A large proportion of the com
On Dec 13, 2011, at 7:10 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> Lots of applications depend on the 1.x branch as it is now.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> What does it mean for an app to depend on a specific branch in SVN?
>
> Do those apps depend on 1.x SN
On 13/12/2011 14:25, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Frankly, I think that the lack of generics in commons components drives
> away more users than having java 1.4 compatibility retains.
I disagree in this case.
A large proportion of the commons pool user base is from:
Apache Tomcat 5/6/7 -> Apache Commons
On 13 December 2011 14:50, Phil Steitz wrote:
> We have code close to ready for release that is fully genericised. Let's do
> that.
>
Exactly!
>
> On Dec 13, 2011, at 7:43 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>> Frankly, I think that the la
On 13 December 2011 14:25, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Frankly, I think that the lack of generics in commons components drives
> away more users than having java 1.4 compatibility retains.
>
> I personally won't incorporate any non-genericized components if I can help
> it. There are a few exceptions wh
We have code close to ready for release that is fully genericised. Let's do
that.
On Dec 13, 2011, at 7:43 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> Frankly, I think that the lack of generics in commons components drives
>> away more users than
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Frankly, I think that the lack of generics in commons components drives
> away more users than having java 1.4 compatibility retains.
>
> I personally won't incorporate any non-genericized components if I can help
> it. There are a few excepti
Frankly, I think that the lack of generics in commons components drives
away more users than having java 1.4 compatibility retains.
I personally won't incorporate any non-genericized components if I can help
it. There are a few exceptions where I might like math libraries (oh wait,
commons-math a
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Lots of applications depend on the 1.x branch as it is now.
Hello,
What does it mean for an app to depend on a specific branch in SVN?
Do those apps depend on 1.x SNAPSHOT releases? Do they download the code
and compile it? Which is where
Lots of applications depend on the 1.x branch as it is now. We really can't
just drop support. At least we shouldnt, IMO. What you are proposing is a
third release line. As I have stated before, we are having a hard time getting
timely bug fix releases out now with just *one* release line.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:01 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 13 December 2011 11:36, Simone Tripodi
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Generics would help to ensure suitable types were being used, but>
> would do nothing to prevent the subtle threading bugs that misusing a>
> protected field can cause.>> To my mind, it wo
>> But what is the point?> Do generics really make enough difference to be
>> worth spending the time on?>
we've had that feature available for more than one year[1] (see bottom
page, generics added on 11.10.2010 23:39:15) and not released yet,
when proposing the 2.0-beta1[2] the community reject
On 13 December 2011 11:36, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>
>> Generics would help to ensure suitable types were being used, but> would do
>> nothing to prevent the subtle threading bugs that misusing a> protected
>> field can cause.>> To my mind, it would paper over a few cracks, whilst
>> leaving gap
>
> Generics would help to ensure suitable types were being used, but> would do
> nothing to prevent the subtle threading bugs that misusing a> protected field
> can cause.>> To my mind, it would paper over a few cracks, whilst leaving
> gaping> holes elsewhere.>
we just voted a new maintenance
On 13 December 2011 05:20, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2011, at 0:12, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All:
>>>
>>> We keep on maintaining 1.5.x, that is very good :)
>>>
>>> But, I for one, am tired of not having generics and do
Hi Gary!
that's something similar I proposed time ago[1] - exactly May 5th -
for the same need of having Generics, but I didn't have succes :)
Since we are in do-ocracy if you intend to work on it you have my full
support - I already applied Generics twice on Pool, I can do it for
the third - in t
On Dec 13, 2011, at 0:12, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> We keep on maintaining 1.5.x, that is very good :)
>>
>> But, I for one, am tired of not having generics and do not feel like
>> rushing 2.0 just to get them.
>
>>
> I think
On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> We keep on maintaining 1.5.x, that is very good :)
>
> But, I for one, am tired of not having generics and do not feel like
> rushing 2.0 just to get them.
>
I think we are actually pretty close on 2.0. I think it's best to p
19 matches
Mail list logo
