Re: [Numbers] API of "Complex"

2018-02-01 Thread Gilles
On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:59:13 +0100, Gilles wrote: Hi. IMHO, there are too many accessor and factory methods. We should strive for a lean and consistent API. For the factory methods, I suggest the "of" convention: public static Complex ofCartesian(double re, double im) public static Complex

[Numbers] Check for "null" in basic operations?

2018-02-01 Thread Gilles
Hi. In class "Complex", some methods check that their argument is not null. I don't think that it is necessary since it is an obvious programming error that will raise a NPE as soon as the argument is used (i.e. in these cases, at the next statement). Gilles

[Numbers] API of "Complex"

2018-02-01 Thread Gilles
Hi. IMHO, there are too many accessor and factory methods. We should strive for a lean and consistent API. For the factory methods, I suggest the "of" convention: public static Complex ofCartesian(double re, double im) public static Complex ofPolar(double abs, double arg) And, as syntactic

Re: [Numbers] API of "Complex"

2018-02-01 Thread Gary Gregory
Hi All: I like the "of" prefix but I think it might be odd to force the convention for ALL factories. It might be an English language thing for me. For example, (picking a made up example) this reads really well to me: Pair.of(foo, bar) because that what you'd use in spoken English. OTOH, this

Re: [Numbers] API of "Complex"

2018-02-01 Thread Stephen Colebourne
On 1 February 2018 at 15:30, Gary Gregory wrote: > For example, (picking a made up example) this reads really well to me: > Pair.of(foo, bar) because that what you'd use in spoken English. > > OTOH, this does not read well to me: Fraction.of(num, denum); this would be >

[GitHub] commons-collections issue #35: COLLECTION-599: Fix for out-of-memory errors ...

2018-02-01 Thread coveralls
Github user coveralls commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/commons-collections/pull/35 [![Coverage Status](https://coveralls.io/builds/15330459/badge)](https://coveralls.io/builds/15330459) Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 86.575% when pulling

Re: [Numbers] API of "Complex"

2018-02-01 Thread Gary Gregory
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > On 1 February 2018 at 15:30, Gary Gregory wrote: > > For example, (picking a made up example) this reads really well to me: > > Pair.of(foo, bar) because that what you'd use in spoken

[GitHub] commons-collections pull request #35: COLLECTION-599: Fix for out-of-memory ...

2018-02-01 Thread saleem-akbar
GitHub user saleem-akbar opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-collections/pull/35 COLLECTION-599: Fix for out-of-memory errors during session replication While using "non-sticky" session replication in a clustered environment, the frequent de-serialisation

[GitHub] commons-collections pull request #34: COLLECTION-599: Fix for out-of-memory ...

2018-02-01 Thread saleem-akbar
GitHub user saleem-akbar opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-collections/pull/34 COLLECTION-599: Fix for out-of-memory errors during session replication While using "non-sticky" session replication in a clustered environment, the frequent de-serialisation

Re: [Signing] New component for code signing

2018-02-01 Thread Emmanuel Bourg
Le 23/01/2018 à 07:33, Mark Thomas a écrit : > Thoughts? Comments? +1 I might even be able to contribute some elements I developed for my jsign project [1]. jsign is able to sign Windows executables but using a local signing certificate or a PKCS#11 token. It comes with an Ant task, a Maven

Re: [Signing] New component for code signing

2018-02-01 Thread Rob Tompkins
> On Feb 1, 2018, at 5:28 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > >> On 01/02/18 22:08, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >>> Le 23/01/2018 à 07:33, Mark Thomas a écrit : >>> >>> Thoughts? Comments? >> >> +1 +1 >> >> I might even be able to contribute some elements I developed for my >> jsign

Re: [Signing] New component for code signing

2018-02-01 Thread Mark Thomas
On 01/02/18 22:08, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 23/01/2018 à 07:33, Mark Thomas a écrit : > >> Thoughts? Comments? > > +1 > > I might even be able to contribute some elements I developed for my > jsign project [1]. jsign is able to sign Windows executables but using a > local signing certificate

Re: [Numbers] API of "Complex"

2018-02-01 Thread Gilles
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:41:58 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: On 1 February 2018 at 15:30, Gary Gregory wrote: > For example, (picking a made up example) this reads really well to me: >

[How to contribute] How to contribute to the community

2018-02-01 Thread Yan, Xianming
Hello all, I just joined the mail group and want to do some contribution for the project, but don't know how. If anyone know would you please tell me. Thanks xm