Gary,
I just realized this AM that there is a change I proposed to simplify the
deprecated output. Please see pull request 277. I think the change from
BiFormat to Format makes the HelpFormatter API much cleaner.
Claude
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 6:26 PM Claude Warren wrote:
> Gary,
>
> I thin
The RC is out.
Gary
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:27 PM Claude Warren wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> I think the CLI release candidate can be cut now. I didn't see any more
> issues when I was fixing the code. So I am
> +1 on cutting a release candidate.
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 8:49 PM Gary Gregory wr
Gary,
I think the CLI release candidate can be cut now. I didn't see any more
issues when I was fixing the code. So I am
+1 on cutting a release candidate.
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 8:49 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> How does it look now?
>
> Would you check git master is OK, then I can cut a releas
At one point i suggested a set of helper functions for Option. I think
that it would really help before this change goes out. With it we can
reasonably change the BiFunction to a simple function taking an Option and
returning a String.
I will code this up tomorrow.
Claude
On Wed 15 May 2024, 0
I opened CLI-333 to address the Build production method issue.
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:25 PM Gary Gregory
wrote:
> Sounds good to me! Thank you for talking it out. GoF reference appreciated
> 👏 😉
>
> Looking forward to a PR,
> Gary
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2024, 1:47 PM Claude Warren wrote:
>
>
Sounds good to me! Thank you for talking it out. GoF reference appreciated
👏 😉
Looking forward to a PR,
Gary
On Tue, May 14, 2024, 1:47 PM Claude Warren wrote:
> I have to admit that i am partial to build but in reviewing gang of four
> and various java build patterns i find that there are a n
I have to admit that i am partial to build but in reviewing gang of four
and various java build patterns i find that there are a number of terminal
methods.
Gary is, I now believe, correct; that the builder should implement Supplier.
On Tue 14 May 2024, 19:28 Claude Warren, wrote:
> By factor
By factory i assume you mean builder in this context
To my understanding a factory can produce mutiple types of objects while a
builder ony one. I got called out on that awhile ago on a different project
Should we then make all existing builders in CLI implement supplier and
deprecate the curren
Also think of the anti pattern of all Commons Components implementing their
own factory pattern with a custom interface instead of just reusing Java's
own Supplier.
Gary
On Tue, May 14, 2024, 1:00 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> IMO future factories should only be Suppliers.
>
> Whether to deprecate c
IMO future factories should only be Suppliers.
Whether to deprecate current code in favor of Suppliers is possible if only
a bit noisy.
Gary
On Tue, May 14, 2024, 12:22 PM Claude Warren wrote:
> I have submitted a draft pull request
> https://github.com/apache/commons-cli/pull/272
>
> However,
I have submitted a draft pull request
https://github.com/apache/commons-cli/pull/272
However, I would like to resolve the Builder/build Builder/get naming issue
before I take it out of draft mode.
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 6:05 PM Claude Warren wrote:
> I will add some tests to show what it is
I will add some tests to show what it is doing in the various cases. But I
think that since we are now providing external developers with the ability
to display custom information about the Option there are a couple of
function that we could probably use internally and provide to the external
deve
Eric, I may have broken it with my implementation of the HelpFormatter
deprecatedFormatFunc() method.
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 4:06 PM Claude Warren wrote:
> We already have historical uses of builders in CLI (e.g.
> CommandLine.Builder) that use build() not get().
> In addition many of the other
We already have historical uses of builders in CLI (e.g.
CommandLine.Builder) that use build() not get().
In addition many of the other commons packages have Builders that are
triggered by a "build" call.
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:03 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Better documentation is a
Hi All,
Better documentation is always nice :-)
I vote for Supplier/get() because it does not require the invention of
something new that does _exactly the same thing as the code already
provided in the JRE_.
Gary
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 8:22 AM Claude Warren wrote:
>
> I find a couple of issu
I *thought* that is how things work…. I am going to double check my usage of
this feature in Solr CLI (not yet released) and report back!
> On May 14, 2024, at 8:25 AM, Claude Warren wrote:
>
> I also think that the if an Option is marked with deprecated then the
> HelpFormatter should, by def
I also think that the if an Option is marked with deprecated then the
HelpFormatter should, by default, inlcude the "[Deprecated]" line. (I am
working on a change for this too)
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 2:22 PM Claude Warren wrote:
> I find a couple of issues:
>
> No documentation for the new opt
I find a couple of issues:
No documentation for the new options. (I am working on that).
A weird mix of .get() and .build() methods on builders. The new builders
all extend Supplier<> so the get makes sense in that respect, but I don't
think this is the normal nomenclature for Builders. I expec
Will do.
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 8:49 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> How does it look now?
>
> Would you check git master is OK, then I can cut a release candidate
> later in the week.
>
> Gary
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 6:28 AM Claude Warren wrote:
> >
> > Also, it appears that the deprecatedHandle
How does it look now?
Would you check git master is OK, then I can cut a release candidate
later in the week.
Gary
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 6:28 AM Claude Warren wrote:
>
> Also, it appears that the deprecatedHandler is only tested on the string
> option processing. if the application retains a
Also, it appears that the deprecatedHandler is only tested on the string
option processing. if the application retains a list of Options and passes
those in to be checked the deprecation check is not execute.
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 12:18 PM Claude Warren wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I see that ther
21 matches
Mail list logo
