+1
Stephen Colebourne
Robert Burrel Donkin
James Carmen
Phil Steitz
The vote passed, but not without debate.
I'll take this debate back to [collections], probably after Javapolis.
Stephen
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
The [collections] component would like to split out a new commons proper
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 23:12 +, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
snip
---
[X] +1 I support creating [collection-functors]
[ ] +0 It's OK
[ ] +1 If you must
[ ] -1 I don't support this because
---
- robert
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:09 +, Tim Roberts wrote:
+1 I support creating a functors library (but not necessarily called
collections-functors).
Rational:
I think functors are a powerful approach to software design, under
represented (in java) and non-standardised. I would like to see
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:09 +, Tim Roberts wrote:
+1 I support creating a functors library (but not necessarily called
collections-functors).
Rational:
I think functors are a powerful approach to software design, under
represented (in java) and
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:17 -0500, Michael Heuer wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:09 +, Tim Roberts wrote:
+1 I support creating a functors library (but not necessarily called
collections-functors).
Rational:
I think functors are a powerful
On 11/29/05, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Carman wrote:
So, TransformerUtils would have to move into the new component, right?
Would the Transformer, Closure, and Predicate interfaces stay in the core
package or go into the new component?
TransformerUtils -
--- Thomas Dudziak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/29/05, Stephen Colebourne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TransformerUtils - [collection-functors]
PredicateUtils - [collection-functors]
ClosureUtils - [collection-functors]
FactoryUtils - [collection-functors]
Transformer - [collections]
On 11/29/05, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The new component is [collection-functors], so there
should be no confusion.
Ok, you're right, that would be clear.
I do expect different release cycles going forward.
There is only a small tie between the two bits of code
(4
(such as voting on this change).
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 November 2005 01:13
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New commons proper component - collections-functors
Reissued ballot paper as I can't use Ctrl+C
for any
mistakes/inappropriate actions (such as voting on this change).
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 November 2005 01:13
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] New commons proper component - collections-functors
Reissued ballot
The [collections] component would like to split out a new commons proper
component, [collection-functors]. This component will be created
directly in commons proper, not the sandbox as it contains code
previously released. The primary motivations are to reduce to amount of
code held within
James Carman: +1
Did you mean -0 If you must?
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 6:12 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: [VOTE] New commons proper component - collections-functors
The [collections
On 11/28/05, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The [collections] component would like to split out a new commons proper
component, [collection-functors]. This component will be created
directly in commons proper, not the sandbox as it contains code
previously released. The primary
:12 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: [VOTE] New commons proper component - collections-functors
The [collections] component would like to split out a new commons proper
component, [collection-functors]. This component will be created
directly in commons proper, not the sandbox
Reissued ballot paper as I can't use Ctrl+C...
---
[ ] +1 I support creating [collection-functors]
[ ] +0 It's OK
[ ] -0 If you must
[ ] -1 I don't support this because
---
Stephen
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
The [collections] component would like to
James Carman wrote:
So, TransformerUtils would have to move into the new component, right?
Would the Transformer, Closure, and Predicate interfaces stay in the core
package or go into the new component?
TransformerUtils - [collection-functors]
PredicateUtils - [collection-functors]
On 11/28/05, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Carman wrote:
So, TransformerUtils would have to move into the new component, right?
Would the Transformer, Closure, and Predicate interfaces stay in the core
package or go into the new component?
TransformerUtils -
17 matches
Mail list logo
