Hi Everyone,
Any decision on this yet ?
Thanks
Nitin
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM nitin mahendru
wrote:
> Just another follow up. Anything new ?
>
> -Nitin
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:58 AM Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
>> Not yet
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, nitin mahendru wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Any decision on this yet ?
>
Not yet. Needs a bit more stewing and brewing...
Gary
> Thanks
>
> Nitin
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM nitin mahendru
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:00:54 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Aug 18, 2017 16:10, "Gilles" wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:46:11 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:21:45
On Aug 18, 2017 16:10, "Gilles" wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:46:11 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Gilles
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:21:45 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:46:11 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:21:45 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:21:45 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Gilles
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:41:01 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>> On
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:21:45 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:41:01 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:41:01 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Gilles
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:27:53 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:52:01 +0200, Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:34:54 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> To be clear, you are then OK with simply adding the two put() methods to
>>> CSVRecord? Option 1
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:41:01 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:27:53 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
Let's summarize the options:
0) do nothing
1) Add two put methods to CVSRecord making the class
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:52:01 +0200, Gilles wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:34:54 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
To be clear, you are then OK with simply adding the two put()
methods to
CSVRecord? Option 1 in my eariler message.
Actually, I think that it is not OK to not acknowledge the
breaking
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:34:54 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> To be clear, you are then OK with simply adding the two put() methods to
>> CSVRecord? Option 1 in my eariler message.
>>
>
> Actually, I think that it is
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:27:53 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Let's summarize the options:
>>
>> 0) do nothing
>> 1) Add two put methods to CVSRecord making the class mutable
>> 2) Add a "mutableRecord" boolean option
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:34:54 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
To be clear, you are then OK with simply adding the two put() methods
to
CSVRecord? Option 1 in my eariler message.
Actually, I think that it is not OK to not acknowledge the
breaking nature of the proposal.
As Simon noted you might want
To be clear, you are then OK with simply adding the two put() methods to
CSVRecord? Option 1 in my eariler message.
Gary
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:36:06 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Please see branch CSV-216 for a
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:36:06 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
Please see branch CSV-216 for a KISS implementation that uses a
CSVMutableRecord subclass.
I don't think anyone gains anything through this subclassing.
A client can no longer assume that an instance of "CSVRecord" is
immutable and will
Please see branch CSV-216 for a KISS implementation that uses a
CSVMutableRecord subclass.
I do not believe this feature warrants creating interfaces or
framework-like code. I do not believe we need to start leaning the JDBC-way.
Gary
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Simon Spero
On Aug 15, 2017 8:01 PM, "Gilles" wrote:
Saying that making record mutable is "breaking" is a bit unfair when we do
> NOT document the mutability of the class in the first place.
>
I'm stating a fact: class is currently immutable, change would make it
mutable; it
Not yet ;-)
On Aug 17, 2017 11:34, "nitin mahendru" wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Any consensus on this ?
>
> -Nitin
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:43 PM Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Gilles
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:27:53 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
Let's summarize the options:
0) do nothing
1) Add two put methods to CVSRecord making the class mutable
2) Add a "mutableRecord" boolean option to CVSRecord and CSVFormat
such
that a new boolean in CVSRecord allow method from 1) above to
Let's summarize the options:
0) do nothing
1) Add two put methods to CVSRecord making the class mutable
2) Add a "mutableRecord" boolean option to CVSRecord and CSVFormat such
that a new boolean in CVSRecord allow method from 1) above to either work
or throw an exception.
3) Add a "mutableRecord"
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:43:26 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:52:32 +, nitin mahendru wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:02:20 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, nitin
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:52:32 +, nitin mahendru wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:02:20 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, nitin mahendru
>>> >>
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:52:32 +, nitin mahendru wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:02:20 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, nitin mahendru
24 matches
Mail list logo