But thats not to suggest that the subject shouldn't be "tabled" from time to time, just as a measure of "calibration" between the two projects.
It seems the case that [math] will always be dependent on [lang] and not the other way around. I think there should be some discussion about what math needs to use that may already be available in [lang]. As well it would be wise to do the same with [collections]. I suspect that [math] will always be hierarchically dependent on these packages.
-Mark
Henri Yandell wrote:
My fault for starting this :)
I can see that over time a balance between lang and math would occur. If lang.math had too much in [ie) is Range really common enough etc etc] then it would deprecate in favour of [math].
Ditto for [text]. If we include Word* stuff now, then later when [text] is mature we can deprecate in favour of it. The main point being, let's not hold code back just because there might be a project to hold it in a year. It is better for users and for that project itself to have the basic text, math, reflect, whatever code in lang and hand it over later.
It's much like how we'd expect other Apache projects to work. They write their own util stuff, but over time it becomes obvious that it's better placed in Lang and they work out a plan to migrate to ours. Exactly as Henning wants to do with WordWrap, if it can be ready.
Hen
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Doesn't work like that :-)
[math] is a very large mathematics/statistics package. This is suited to mathematical or statistical analysis.
[lang].math is a small convenient addition to the JDK. It contains classes that should be in the JDK, such as number ranges and fraction. These will always form part of [lang] IMO.
Stephen
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resending.
Since we are on the topic of things in the wrong place... I'll raise
another
"arg" and ask: Why have an o.a.c.lang.math when we have a o.a.c.math in
the
works? If o.a.c.lang.math is really useful, why not move it to o.a.c.math?
If you used the now deprecated range classes, you /should/ change your
code
to .lang.math. Hmm, maybe this is something we could do for 2.1/3.0.
Gary
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 10:05 To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
So, not too aarggh then, just pull WordWrapUtils ;-))
(The other stuff this morning was all javadoc except for ToStringStyle where a method rename took place with deprecation)
Stephen
----- Original Message ----- From: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
*aarggh* :)
WordWrapUtils is broken.
No no no. It's a feature.
The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for
two
purposes. 1) Splitting the input string 2) Adding newlines to the output string
This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or
fixed (not
preferred, as there are various issues)
+1 to pulled out for consideration for 2.1/other.
Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name. I propose: 1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
+1 on WordUtils. More generic.
2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils 3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils 4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
+1 for 2.1/3.0.
This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much
better
functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course
you
could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that
much.)
-1 to [text] taking the above until [text] is ready for 1.0. I am +1
for
a
[text], in the same way I'm +1 for [math], but I don't want us to deprecate our methods until [math] releases at 1.0 with our methods included.
I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of
capitaliseAllWords
will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small
group
of
people and postpone the change to 2.1.
Opinions?
There are going to be changes on the new features before 2.1/3.0, and it's going to be a year probably until we have a 3.0 out [though 2.0.1
or
2.1 might be quicker]. I may be being lazy, but I don't think that
going
with WordUtils right now would affect too many people and we don't
really
have enough knowledge right now to get it right for 2.0.
Hen
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
