Werner, thanks for your comments of caution, but its not clear what you are
trying to say.
I would like to comment that you seem to be engaging and speaking to more
and more of our 2.0 work. I just want to point out that this is against our
previous agreement with Bertrand where we partitioned this project into
different parts where we could work without interruption. 2.0 is one of
these areas.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Werner Keil <werner.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure about this particular case, but with the necessary caution other
> similar cases were solved by "sub-classing" those attributes from a common
> parent I recall.
>
> A general problem we simply further amended to is, "Device Data" contains
> information that would belong to the existing browser or OS files.
> Something that can be addressed with a JSON structures, but once that
> target structure is in place and ready, we still need to transform existing
> device data.
> Nobody would want to start from zero by manually adding those Thousands of
> devices already there.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Looks like "HTC One X" and "HTC One X+" match the same since 1.0
> normalizes
> > out the regex. Otherwise, im guessing the + is an error because its
> likely
> > meant to be a literal \+ and not a regex. Since the patterns are
> identical,
> > the device choosen is the first one reached during iteration. The patch
> > changes this because the data structure changes from a HashMap to a
> > HashSet, so iteration order is different.
> >
> > I could add logic to the ranking function to fix this, but at this point
> > there is no use. Getting matching to properly work on the ODDR data will
> > never be perfect because the data has many errors like the one above. So
> as
> > always, the solution here is the fix the bad pattern.
> >
> > Also, some problems with your split() method. It shouldn't be static and
> > you can remove the reference to Apache commons by using String.isEmpty().
> > Not sure we need the null check, but null is allowed in normalize(), so
> its
> > best to err on the side of safety. Below is the corrected version:
> >
> > ---
> >
> > private List<String> split(String text) {
> > List<String> nonemptyParts = new ArrayList<String>();
> >
> > String[] parts = TEXT_SPLIT_PATTERN.split(text);
> >
> > for (String part : parts) {
> > String normalizedPart = Pattern.normalize(part);
> >
> > if (normalizedPart != null && !normalizedPart.isEmpty()) {
> > nonemptyParts.add(normalizedPart);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > return nonemptyParts;
> > }
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Also, the style of the 1.0 Java client is to be explicit with imports and
> > not use the wildcard. Just a small style nitpick. So if you can correct
> the
> > above split() function (and fix the imports), your patch should be good
> to
> > go with the HTC One X tests removed.
> >
> > I will put this in the ticket.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Reza Naghibi <r...@naghibi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This sounds good. Why does the patch remove 2 user agents from the test
> > > file?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <
> volkan.yaz...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Then if there are no objects, I will proceed patching 1.x this week.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Werner Keil <werner.k...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If it improves the performance, as Stefan mentioned, I see no
> reason
> > > why
> > > > > you should wait.
> > > > > 2.x is very likely to be much different, most importantly using
> JSON,
> > > so
> > > > > the patch could not even match there as it does now;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Werner
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <
> > > volkan.yaz...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Reza,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was waiting for the 2.0 release of the client to commit those
> > > > changes.
> > > > > Do
> > > > > > you want me to commit them to the 1.x branch?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > No reason. This patch was submitted by Volkan before he had
> > commit
> > > > > > rights,
> > > > > > > so he posted it on JIRA. Volkan is now a committer and he is
> > > allowed
> > > > to
> > > > > > > work on the 1.0 clients, so im pretty sure he is free to commit
> > the
> > > > > > patch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Stefan Seelmann <
> > > > > > m...@stefan-seelmann.de>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I browsed through the devicemap-client Java code and saw some
> > > > > > > > performance optimizations in DeviceMapClient.classify().
> Then I
> > > saw
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > there is already an issue and patch available since last
> > > December.
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > > there a reason why it is not yet committed? The patch
> currently
> > > > has a
> > > > > > > > compile error as commons-lang is not in dependencies but
> that's
> > > > easy
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > fix.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kind Regards,
> > > > > > > > Stefan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DMAP-107
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
