Gary Gregory wrote:
Thoughts on generics for Codec
I tried an approach to add generics to Codec here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/codec/branches/generics
I consider this (now old) experiment part success and part failure and I
would like to share it here.
I will
Le 29/04/2013 04:21, Gary Gregory a écrit :
Upon reflection, it seems overly restrictive (thanks to Java) to have one
encoding or decoding type per class. What should be the alternative for a
nice OO design?
Just a wild guess, but would a builder pattern be suitable for codec?
Maybe
On 29 April 2013 03:21, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts on generics for Codec
I tried an approach to add generics to Codec here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/codec/branches/generics
I consider this (now old) experiment part success and part failure and
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be safer.
I could imagine doing a first alpha till next week, and postpone some
changes to an alpha2 release, as I will
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-884 has a patch to simplify
FastDateFormat which I would like to apply.
OK?
Hi Ron,
Thank you for the report. Can you create a JIRA for this please? Do
you have a fix perchance?
Gary
On Apr 29, 2013, at 1:53, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote:
http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-codec/apidocs/org/apache/commons/codec/language/Metaphone.html
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be safer.
I could imagine doing a first alpha till next week, and postpone some
changes to an alpha2 release, as I will need a bit more time to work on the
Trie interface and maybe add a fluent API
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be safer.
Please keep upwards compatibility to any
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be safer.
On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the
Hi all,
Since 2.x series, we have been struggling in several areas with respect
to algorithms API. The latest change was about optimizer, but it is only
one example among others (solvers, integration, ODE and maybe some parts
of statistics may be concerned by the proposal below).
The various
On 04/29/2013 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be safer.
I could imagine doing a first alpha till next week, and postpone some
On 04/29/2013 04:51 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:56:02 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart
thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:40:52 +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Hi all,
Since 2.x series, we have been struggling in several areas with
respect
to algorithms API. The latest change was about optimizer, but it is
only
one example among others (solvers, integration, ODE and maybe some
parts
of
On 29 April 2013 21:49, Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:56:02 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 19:36, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/29/2013 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if something is broken, so I
guess an alpha release would be
Sorry, hit wrong button - not yet used to the new GMail.
On 29 April 2013 19:36, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/29/2013 11:02 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:42, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, I certainly *want* to change the API if
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:47:15 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 21:49, Gilles gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:56:02 +0100, sebb wrote:
On 29 April 2013 15:51, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/13 5:39 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29,
I am ambivalent. The change adds some, but not much extra clarity to the
implementation. On the other hand, this change does change the public
signatures of FormatCache. Is FormatCache considered part of the API?
chas
On 4/29/13 2:06 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 April 2013 00:20, Honton, Charles charles_hon...@intuit.com wrote:
I am ambivalent. The change adds some, but not much extra clarity to the
implementation. On the other hand, this change does change the public
signatures of FormatCache. Is FormatCache considered part of the API?
No.
21 matches
Mail list logo
