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
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
Just another follow up. Anything new ?
-Nitin
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:58 AM Gary Gregory
wrote:
> Not yet ;-)
>
> On Aug 17, 2017 11:34, "nitin mahendru"
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Any consensus on this ?
> >
> > -Nitin
> >
> >
> >
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
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
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:52:32 +, nitin mahendru wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017
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, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, nitin mahendru wrote:
> How about having a state in the class itself which says that it's mutable
> or not.
> If we call a setter on an immutable then it throws an exception.
> By default the records are immutable and you need to
How about having a state in the class itself which says that it's mutable
or not.
If we call a setter on an immutable then it throws an exception.
By default the records are immutable and you need to make them mutable
using a new API.
pros: Saves memory, Keeps the immutability benefits
cons:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:49:04 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
That looks odd to me. What comes up for me is the use case where I
want to
ETL a file of 10,000,000 records and update, say, one column. If am
forced
to create a brand new record for every record read, that would be a
shame.
Why?
If I
That looks odd to me. What comes up for me is the use case where I want to
ETL a file of 10,000,000 records and update, say, one column. If am forced
to create a brand new record for every record read, that would be a shame.
If I had a mutable record, I could just keep on updating it and using it
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:01:53 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote:
How does that work when you want to change more than one value?
How about a "vararg" argument:
/**
* @param orig Original to be copied.
* @param replace Fields to be replaced.
*/
public static CSVRecord createRecord(CSVRecord orig,
How does that work when you want to change more than one value?
Gary
On Aug 15, 2017 00:17, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I very much like that CSVRecord is unmodifiable. So I’d suggest an API,
> that creates a new record instead of mutating the existing one:
>
>
Hi,
I very much like that CSVRecord is unmodifiable. So I’d suggest an API, that
creates a new record instead of mutating the existing one:
CSVRecord newRecord = myRecord.put(1, „value")
I’m not sure about „put“ as a method name since it clashes with
java.util.Map#put, which is mutation
Feel free to provide a PR on GitHub :-)
Gary
On Aug 14, 2017 15:29, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
> I think we've kept the design as YAGNI as possible... :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:25 PM, nitin mahendru <
> nitin.mahendr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah that also
I think we've kept the design as YAGNI as possible... :-)
Gary
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:25 PM, nitin mahendru
wrote:
> Yeah that also is OK. I though there is a reason to keep the CSVRecord
> without setters. But maybe not!
>
> Nitin
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017
Yeah that also is OK. I though there is a reason to keep the CSVRecord
without setters. But maybe not!
Nitin
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:22 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> Should we consider adding put(int,Object) and put(String, Object) to the
> current CSVRecord
Hi All:
Should we consider adding put(int,Object) and put(String, Object) to the
current CSVRecord class?
Gary
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:54 PM, nitin mahendru
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I recently pushed a change(pull request 20) to get the line ending from the
>
17 matches
Mail list logo