Le 10/11/2013 21:46, Christian Grobmeier a écrit :
From all the log4j talks I gave recently there were zero people using
commons-logging. For me it is dead.
For what it's worth, the install base of commons-logging in Debian is
ten times the one of slf4j, and there is no sign of it declining:
2013/11/14 Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org
Le 10/11/2013 21:46, Christian Grobmeier a écrit :
From all the log4j talks I gave recently there were zero people using
commons-logging. For me it is dead.
For what it's worth, the install base of commons-logging in Debian is
ten times the one
On 14 Nov 2013, at 10:01, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 10/11/2013 21:46, Christian Grobmeier a écrit :
From all the log4j talks I gave recently there were zero people using
commons-logging. For me it is dead.
For what it's worth, the install base of commons-logging in Debian is
ten times the
does it have anybody developing Apache Chain?
--
Lin Di
lindib...@gmail.com
Hi Lin,
I've worked on it a while back. But at the moment there is no development
activity.
Benedikt
2013/11/14 Lin Di lindib...@gmail.com
does it have anybody developing Apache Chain?
--
Lin Di
lindib...@gmail.com
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
On 11/11/2013 10:12 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to call a vote for releasing Commons Collections 4.0 based on RC3.
Changes since RC2:
* [COLLECTIONS-499] Refactored the test framework for Bag
implementations to extend from AbstractCollectionTest by
decorating the
On 11/13/2013 10:59 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 11/13/2013 05:39 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Neidhart wrote:
[snip]
For IBM JDK 6: I did already ignore several tests (due to problems with
the TreeMap implementation there)
On 11/14/2013 06:12 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
How about the name removeEntry|Entries since there is a Map.Entry.
Also possible, but there is a subtle difference imho:
* removeMapping does not assume that such a mapping exists, whereas
* removeEntry sounds like you remove an entry that you are
On 11/14/13 1:06 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 11/14/2013 06:12 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
How about the name removeEntry|Entries since there is a Map.Entry.
Also possible, but there is a subtle difference imho:
* removeMapping does not assume that such a mapping exists, whereas
* removeEntry
For anyone's observation, I sent this question to the Open JDK list because
I am so surprised how adding default methods can break custom interface
extensions. I was really hoping default methods would be much more subtle
but it turns out this could be a common occurrence going forward. What if
On 11/14/13 2:39 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
For anyone's observation, I sent this question to the Open JDK list because
I am so surprised how adding default methods can break custom interface
extensions. I was really hoping default methods would be much more subtle
but it turns out this could be
On 11/13/13 8:04 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/13/13 7:52 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:25:22 -0800, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/13/13 2:31 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:44:13 -0800, Phil Steitz wrote:
The implementation of this method has been replaced by the
MathArrays
On 12 November 2013 05:17, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:24 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 November 2013 17:45, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/6/13 10:11 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Gary Gregory
13 matches
Mail list logo
