Hi Matt,
2013/2/13 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
TBH, I can't recall what the argument was against Functor either; I think
it had something to do with potentially confusing users of other libraries?
Functor
|_NullaryFunctor
|_UnaryFunctor
|_BinaryFunctor
*is* the current state. :)
Hi Jörg,
I like the simplicity annotations can provide.
As Matt has pointed out Annotations do not define types, which makes it
hard to let the compiler do the validation of the code.
We could implement a custom annotation post processor. But that would
require additional setup for users.
Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hi Matt,
2013/2/13 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
TBH, I can't recall what the argument was against Functor either; I
think it had something to do with potentially confusing users of other
libraries?
Functor
|_NullaryFunctor
|_UnaryFunctor
|_BinaryFunctor
On 14 February 2013 09:13, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@scalaris.com wrote:
Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hi Matt,
2013/2/13 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
TBH, I can't recall what the argument was against Functor either; I
think it had something to do with potentially confusing users of other
Once again, an enum wouldn't readily be able to contribute to your
functor's being able to participate in some method by type signature; i.e.,
I want to support the use case of:
add(ArgumentedBinary somethingThatTakesTwoArguments);
Maybe this isn't a worthwhile goal, but so far I don't see
Hi Matt,
Matt Benson wrote:
Once again, an enum wouldn't readily be able to contribute to your
functor's being able to participate in some method by type signature;
i.e., I want to support the use case of:
add(ArgumentedBinary somethingThatTakesTwoArguments);
Maybe this isn't a
I would say that certainly one would often want to create an API like
you've described. What I am reluctant not to support is:
class Foo {
static void add(ArgumentedBinary? extends CharSequence, ? extends
CharSequence functor);
}
Foo.add(new BinaryFunctionString, String, String() {});
2013/2/12 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com:
well not enough time right now but i hope in some weeks
the idea would be to get:
- something to measure (i think it is already here)
- some basic aop (abstraction, spring, cdi?)
- some basic view of the measures (servlet or even a
Hi,
Is there any information on incompatibilities between 1.0.3 and 1.0.13?
Hadoop is still using 1.0.3 with the known group id issue, and it needs to
be upgraded to a later version. We got this information:
http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/daemon/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
But it's not clear whether
a good start for me, i like the GUI but the measure and the config is not
so friendly (and results seems wrong)
*Romain Manni-Bucau*
*Twitter: @rmannibucau https://twitter.com/rmannibucau*
*Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
*LinkedIn:
Am 14.02.2013 16:51, schrieb Matt Benson:
I would say that certainly one would often want to create an API like
you've described. What I am reluctant not to support is:
class Foo {
static void add(ArgumentedBinary? extends CharSequence, ? extends
CharSequence functor);
}
Foo.add(new
On 02/14/2013 05:30 PM, Sangjin Lee wrote:
Hi,
Is there any information on incompatibilities between 1.0.3 and 1.0.13?
Hadoop is still using 1.0.3 with the known group id issue, and it needs to
be upgraded to a later version. We got this information:
12 matches
Mail list logo
