Notwithstanding the fact that we would have to redeploy all the component
sites, wouldn't our URLs look better if we used the unadorned
commons.componentid? e.g.
http://commons.apache.org/proper/lang
http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/weaver
etc. ?
Matt
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:15 PM,
Argh, followed instructions at
http://commons.apache.org/site-publish.htmlas far as I can tell, but
[weaver]'s modules didn't come through. Do I
need to set the commons.scmPubUrl property for each module perhaps?
Matt
Interestingly, after making this change and publishing the website, it
doesn't seem to be working for [weaver]. :/
Matt
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:09 PM, mben...@apache.org wrote:
Author: mbenson
Date: Thu Aug 22 01:09:46 2013
New Revision: 1516350
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1516350
This stuff looks great, Romain! I do note the repeated misspelling of the
word mechanism ('h' omitted), but I'm quite impressed both with the site
as well as the work it is documenting.
Matt
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote:
Up?
Ps: here is a
Thanks for taking an interest, Seb! I'll work on these today.
Matt
On Aug 14, 2013 2:56 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 August 2013 23:01, mben...@apache.org wrote:
Author: mbenson
Date: Tue Aug 13 22:01:48 2013
New Revision: 1513669
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1513669
Log:
To stir the pot, one might even make a case for using Reader only ;-) .
Matt
On Aug 14, 2013 8:03 AM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org
wrote:
2013/8/12 Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013
My thinking was more that CSVParser itself implements Iterator.
Matt
On Aug 13, 2013 2:59 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Matt,
2013/8/12 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
As someone with no prior involvement with this component, and at risk of
being hit by the digital
enthusiasm has ceased they are hanging around in proper
without being released.
I haven't seen much activity in weaver over the past weeks. How close
is
it
to a release? What has to be done to cut an RC?
Benedikt
2013/8/11 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
Hi all
in
this case, it seems to me justifiable. WDYT?
Matt
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
We had that before but switched to Iterable to make it possible to use
CSVPaarser in foreach loops.
2013/8/13 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
My thinking was more
As someone with no prior involvement with this component, and at risk of
being hit by the digital tomatoes of the group, this seems to indicate to
me that once a parser definition has been joined to a source of input, the
resulting object *is* the record iterator. If there's no way to twist that
Hi all,
Hopefully you've noticed that I've been working, as time permits, on the
[weaver] component in the sandbox. As a reminder, this component (after an
exhausting bout of on-list consensus building ;) ), is designed as a
general-purpose framework for defining bytecode transformations that
Actually I think by function name he was referring to the unfortunate
English-language sexual innuendo incurred by the abbreviation of the word
cumulative in the method name.
Matt
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/6/13 10:00 AM, Konstantin Berlin
But is there some technical reason why it's helpful for ASM proxies to use
InvocationHandler specifically? Why wouldn't they just use Invoker
directly?
Matt
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote:
+1
jdkproxyfactory can even be hardcoded as a default
/rmannibucau*
*Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
*LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
2013/8/1 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
But is there some technical reason why it's helpful for ASM proxies to use
://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
*LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
2013/8/1 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
The behavior of proxies is specified by Invokers, ObjectProviders, and
Interceptors. Each ProxyFactory implementation
*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
2013/7/29 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
Rather than duplicating code I thought we could code to asm4's released
jars, and provide the basic proxy-asm artifact. Then shade asm4 and
provide proxy-asm-shaded. Then optionally, we could create another
: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
2013/7/29 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
Rather than duplicating code I thought we could code to asm4's released
jars, and provide the basic proxy-asm artifact. Then shade asm4 and
provide proxy-asm
/in/rmannibucau*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
2013/7/28 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
Interesting patch. I have some questions and comments:
- You'd additionally need to make sure the impl class is non-final, no?
hmm, good question i didn't check but with asm we can subclass
CaseBuilder could be static as well.
Matt
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:10 AM, jcar...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jcarman
Date: Mon Jul 29 15:10:07 2013
New Revision: 1508094
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1508094
Log:
PROXY-20: Changing API around a bit to be more fluent
Modified:
/
*LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
2013/7/29 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
answers inline
*Romain Manni-Bucau*
*Twitter: @rmannibucau https
SwitchInterceptor.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
wrote:
CaseBuilder could be static as well.
Matt
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:10 AM, jcar...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jcarman
Date: Mon Jul 29 15:10:07 2013
New Revision: 1508094
URL: http
As I had mentioned, support for some form of dynamic response was the last
feature I had wanted to get into the stub module, so I am certainly not
opposed to this. I had simply thought to eat dog food by using [functor]
interfaces, but that's not a big deal. I have not yet reviewed your latest
AFAIK Mark Struberg's work on the OWB proxies could be instructive, and
since I've just spent several weeks in ASM hell I might just be a bit of
use there myself. The only thing is, isn't cglib built on ASM as well? The
dynamic nature of the various proxy helpers means that we probably couldn't
writing
currently. Does that make sense?
On Saturday, July 27, 2013, Matt Benson wrote:
As I had mentioned, support for some form of dynamic response was the last
feature I had wanted to get into the stub module, so I am certainly not
opposed to this. I had simply thought to eat dog food
/spi/InterceptorStrategy.java;h=a772152c46ae589572c6bb2bfb0292a8e980b2d3;hb=HEAD
- Original Message -
From: Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
To: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:39 PM
time back!
On Friday, July 26, 2013, Matt Benson wrote:
and don't forget the proxy2 branch :D
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:51 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
wrote:
What mem leak?
What is wrong with the transitive deps? They're all optional.
What proxying logic
I know I have used the #nullValue() utility method elsewhere before, so I'd
prefer the latter option, or in the case of the former to provide a similar
method in [lang].
Matt
On Jul 26, 2013 10:26 PM, James Carman james_car...@gap.com wrote:
We currently have some package cycles according to
In this case, since the very fact that there was an
interface/implementation dichotomy was a brand new thing, does it really
matter?
Matt
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:57 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 July 2013 12:56, ma...@apache.org wrote:
Author: markt
Date: Thu Jul 25 11:56:41
Beluga,
Whatever you and Stefan get resolved for Ant, he will then port over to
Commons [compress], being the primary maintainer of both sets of archiver
code. ;)
Matt
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:59 PM, dam6923 . dam6...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I am a big fan of the commons VFS and commons
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jörg Schaible
joerg.schai...@scalaris.comwrote:
Hi Hen,
Henri Yandell wrote:
I don't see any value having the first two methods - replacing the '=='
sign is a bit too far in the 'provide simple methods' direction I think
:)
I think the third method is
WRT #firstNonNull, I don't know why I couldn't find it before. I do now,
and I agree it would seem to fit better in ArrayUtils.
Matt
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Jörg Schaible
joerg.schai...@scalaris.comwrote:
Hi Matt,
Matt Benson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jörg Schaible
if there is at least one object
that is not null). The isNotNull() returns true if all objects are not null.
Rafael Santini
-Mensagem Original- From: Matt Benson
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:20 PM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Lang: ObjectUtils
WRT #firstNonNull, I don't know
(obj1, obj2, obj3,
obj4) is more clear and is so readable like String.isNotBlank() that I use
a lot.
Rafael Santini
-Mensagem Original- From: Matt Benson
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 2:16 PM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: ObjectUtils
I don't know exactly why this thread
I'm not retroactively -1ing anything, but don't we typically have a formal
vote for moving any component from sandbox to proper? What was different
about these plugins?
Thanks,
Matt
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:06 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 June 2013 14:43, Gary Gregory
Heh, I just added a similar question to the plugins thread. Happy to let
this thread rule them all, as it were.
Matt
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
we are unsure about the process of promoting a component from sandbox to
proper. Can this be
Hi Thomas,
A few points:
- you correctly prefixed your email [lang], but it would have been nice to
have a bit more detail in the subject
- enhancement requests and patches should be handled through the ASF JIRA
instance
- java.util.Arrays.asList() is the typically recognized way to create a
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Jörg Schaible
joerg.schai...@scalaris.comwrote:
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 03/06/2013 13:44, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
My personal preference would be Iterable as well as the consumer may
iterate over the return value multiple times without copying stuff
With all Commons components, I'd imagine he meant. ;)
Matt
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
With what project Jochen?
paul
On 24 mai 2013, at 09:46, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Hi,
for those of you who don't know it, this pointer:
I'm looking at the [monitoring] sandbox component. (Notwithstanding some
complex approach) it can't be built with a JDK 1.5 due to the interface
additions made to JDBC in Java 1.6. As 1.5 is EOL and this is a sandbox
component that may well never see the light of day anyway, any objections
to
Hrm, actually I misspoke. I was thinking of the breaking JDBC changes in
Java 7. Same difference except I'm not willing to push [monitoring] that
far yet. Disregard and I'm building with Java 6 :P
Matt
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm looking
/in/rmannibucau*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
2013/5/20 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
Hrm, actually I misspoke. I was thinking of the breaking JDBC changes in
Java 7. Same difference except I'm not willing to push [monitoring] that
far yet. Disregard and I'm building with Java 6 :P
+0
Matt
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 05/13/2013 08:06 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
Hi,
currently, the Bag interface states that it violates the Collection
contract. This is mainly because the interface was defined like that,
Without putting too much importance on what I, personally, think, know that
any ASF committer can have access to hack on a Commons-style library in our
sandbox, just by asking for it. From my personal POV, I'm not sure if what
we're talking about sounds like it has enough surface area to warrant
I believe the point to this one is that any Closure that accepts a
supertype of T can accept a T argument, so it should be safe to pretend
that the Closure is actually parameterized to accept a T argument.
Matt
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:12 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 April 2013
Hi all,
[weaver] now contains code to handle field references in blueprinted
methods; however, the handling of non-public fields for some reason yields
bytecode that throws VerifyErrors at runtime. Thus this code path has been
disabled and a warning issued when non-public fields are referenced.
I rather thought Gary was suggesting to duplicate the enum in both libs.
Matt
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote:
Le 04/04/2013 15:48, Gary Gregory a écrit :
Here is what it would look like in [codec]: http://pastebin.com/HcyiqgCP
Thoughts?
How
In this case I wouldn't consider the duplication to be that big a deal.
Matt
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote:
Le 04/04/2013 21:28, Matt Benson a écrit :
I rather thought Gary was suggesting to duplicate the enum in both libs.
Hum, a dependency
Thanks for this, Stefan!
Matt
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
I've just updated the releasing guide up to the point in time where the
release vote happens. It covers publishing via Nexus and svnpubsub for
releases. This has not been
Well, but given that a release cannot be vetoed, it's probably better to
catch fundamental design problems earlier rather than later.
Matt
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.orgwrote:
I 150% agree with you mate - it's pity here we regularly miss both the
Why not depend on [codec] and shade, then?
Matt
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.comwrote:
How many gigs of ram do phone that run Java have these days?
Gary
On Mar 19, 2013, at 14:39, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 March 2013 18:32, Gary Gregory
Yes, you can shade only the classes needed. Getting rid of code that does
the same thing across multiple Commons components seems a worthwhile use of
time IMO and really shouldn't represent any more work than fixing the
broken classes in [fileupload]. Also, no triage is required to figure out
@author tags are discouraged across ASF Java code; Maven projects can use
the POM, while other projects can use whatever other mechanism they deem
appropriate for establishing a record of contributors. My personal view is
that the presence of author tags is not so offensive as to hold up a
Hi Benedikt,
I like the idea. I'm sure we would all prefer to release more often.
br,
Matt
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
when looking through the components and the sandbox I can see that
development activity is very different.
We
:04 PM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com wrote:
You might check the NOTICE file in the project whence they came.
Matt
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Simone Tripodi
simonetrip...@apache.orgwrote:
Salut Luc/all,
I replaced javax.mail classes with the ones provided by our
You might check the NOTICE file in the project whence they came.
Matt
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Simone Tripodi
simonetrip...@apache.orgwrote:
Salut Luc/all,
I replaced javax.mail classes with the ones provided by our friends of
Apache Geronimo, see r1456515.
I retailed the
I hope so, as Brian Fox was taking measures to disable the staging area on
mino last week. :o
Matt
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2013-03-14, Gary Gregory wrote:
In the past, I've have felt (disgusted is too strong a word) discouraged
from
Hi all,
Mark and I had discussed this offline some time ago, to work through the
ramifications. I think his proposal is safe. For example:
org.apache.tlp.util.SecurityUtil {
//simplified
public static Class? loadClass(String classname) { return
Class.forName(classname); }
}
Note that
Ritter benerit...@gmail.com
To: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: [functor] Change default arity of Function, Predicate and
Procedure
2013/2/14 Oliver Heger oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de
Am 14.02.2013 16:51, schrieb Matt Benson
Am 14.02.2013 16:51, schrieb Matt Benson:
I would say that certainly one would often want to create an API
like
you've described. What I am reluctant not to support is:
class Foo {
static void add(ArgumentedBinary? extends CharSequence, ?
extends
CharSequence functor
anything else
that accomplishes this.
Matt
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:15 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 February 2013 09:13, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@scalaris.com
wrote:
Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hi Matt,
2013/2/13 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
TBH, I can't recall what
, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Jörg Schaible
joerg.schai...@scalaris.comwrote:
Hi Matt,
Matt Benson wrote:
Once again, an enum wouldn't readily be able to contribute to your
functor's being able to participate in some method by type signature;
i.e., I want to support the use case of:
add
WRT a Commons Interceptor API, [proxy] defines Interceptor and other
related interfaces.
Matt
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote:
basically having a commons.Interceptor api can be interesting then we
simply need to map to spring and cdi
this is
and
Procedure
Hi Matt,
2013/2/12 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
Hi Benedikt,
So what you are pointing out is the is a vs. has
a dichotomy? To an
extent, I see your point. I could argue that the semantics of the
word
implements perhaps leaves a bit of so-called
Hi Jorg,
We had at some point talked about whether these could be done with a
simple annotation. I had hoped for something that could be expressed in
terms enforceable by the compiler.
Matt
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@scalaris.com
wrote:
Hi,
Matt
- Original Message -
From: Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
To: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [functor] Change default arity of Function, Predicate and
Procedure
Hi Bruno,
No objections
Wait, now I think we're all getting out of sync with one another. :) I
can respect Sebastian's point that a Commons component's top pom
explicitly declare the groupId, particularly in light of his willingness to
omit it from any subordinate modules, so actually the change that
precipitated this
or committing to SVN :) Sorry, I thought commons-functor-parent had already
a groupId.
Let me know what is the best choice then, and I'll update the trunk.
Cheers
Bruno P. Kinoshita
http://kinoshita.eti.br
http://tupilabs.com
- Original Message -
From: Matt Benson gudnabr
/browse/FUNCTOR-14
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FUNCTOR-24
Bruno P. Kinoshita
http://kinoshita.eti.br
http://tupilabs.com
- Original Message -
From: Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
To: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Monday, February 11
in [functor].
Bruno P. Kinoshita
http://kinoshita.eti.br
http://tupilabs.com
- Original Message -
From: Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
To: Bruno P. Kinoshita brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br
Cc: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:29 PM
Personally I fall on the side of inheriting as much as possible from parent
POMs. If necessary we can have a Commons-wide vote.
Matt
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Bruno P. Kinoshita ki...@apache.orgwrote:
Although strictly speaking the groupId is not required as it is
inherited from the
I would say that in general the Commons libraries favor *creating* APIs
such that intent reads most fluently by *not* using static imports. I
would venture to say that given the examples of when static imports might
be desirable, a good rule of thumb wrt *use* of static imports would again
be
in java.util.functions).
Cheers
Bruno P. Kinoshita
http://kinoshita.eti.br
http://tupilabs.com
- Original Message -
From: Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
To: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org; Bruno P.
Kinoshita brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, January 29
Hi, Bruno. My reasoning for having these marker interfaces was that they
might be a useful means of recognizing the commonality between the various
interfaces depending on the number of arguments accepted.[1] I can't say
that I have a specific use-case for this, however. Would some other
What about in pure functional languages e.g. Haskell?
Matt
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Bruno P. Kinoshita
brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br wrote:
Hi all,
In Java 8 and Guava the default arity of a Function is 1, but in [functor]
it is 0, IOW, in Java 8 and Guava a Function is by default a
/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com wrote:
All: I have merged Bruno's work to
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/functor/branches/FUNCTOR-14-mmbased
on functor's multi-module reorg.
Matt
On Wed, Sep 19
. Kinoshita
http://kinoshita.eti.br
http://tupilabs.com
From: Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
To: Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org
Cc: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [functor] Patch
Hello, Benedikt! I had the same concern about Interruptible, TBH.
Thanks for weighing in. As I mentioned earlier, I am thinking of
PredicatedGenerator at this point.
Matt
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Benedikt Ritter benerit...@gmail.comwrote:
Am 28.01.2013 um 21:12 schrieb Matt Benson
Hmm, I'm struggling with the package name. oacf.generator.flow? I wonder
if we should just merge this package back into oacf.generator.
Matt
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think so, yes. :) Knew there was something I forgot!
Matt
On Mon
://kinoshita.eti.br
http://tupilabs.com
From: Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
To: Bruno P. Kinoshita brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br
Cc: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2012 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [functor] Patch for FUNCTOR-14, new
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
Weaver#weave():
Currently there are separate methods for weaving a class vs. a
method. I
think it would be sufficient and cleaner to have
Hi all, and especially Mark S.--in case I've not done it publicly enough
yet, many thanks to Mark for picking up where I had left off with the
privilizer/weaver code. I think the two of us (others? :D) would like to
reach a point at which the library is usable, so I submit the following
talking
Very exciting! Thanks, Bruno!
Matt
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Bruno P. Kinoshita
brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br wrote:
Hi all,
Just wanted to let you guys know that I am successfully compiling and
executing code using [functor] and Java 8. And am also using [functor]
functional
Mark,
Thanks for driving this forward--as I mentioned to you privately, I'll be
mostly out of pocket through the new year. The groupId may warrant
discussion; most Commons components are being targeted to
org.apache.commons, though I think I understand what you're driving at
here: [weaver] may
Let me see if I understand. Are you saying, Ralph, that when we have
generated content to expose on the website, we should commit it directly to
the production website svn and mark it in extpaths.txt back in our tree in
mainrepo, basically because that avoids the duplication that is created by
I've been talking to Joe S. on #asfinfra about this; rather than using a
test site infra would prefer we request the CMS site, just not exposed to
commons.a.o until we're satisfied with it. Do we want to use the CMS a la
Apache Logging, or do we want to explore keeping the main site
ASF TLPs. If we like to keep a Maven-generated look, we'd
probably be best advised to consult the Maven folks on how they're doing
this.
Matt
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Gilles Sadowski
gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:12:31PM -0600, Matt Benson wrote
...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:52:17PM -0600, Matt Benson wrote:
I've just added the directory to our svn tree so that there would be
someplace at which to point it. I think the next step is to determine
whether we want a normal CMS site like Logging has, in which case we
could
multi modules
projects here ?
--
Olivier
2012/12/14 Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com:
I never questioned that the individual components would most likely
continue with the Maven-generated content. I do question whether we want
to bother laying out the main site when we have something
They should all be built w/ Maven AFAIK.
Matt
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.comwrote:
All the sub-sites are hooked off the main site. I would have no idea how
to migrate anything without migrating the main site first.
I suppose it is possible to
I don't think there's much percentage in moving to the CMS with a structure
like that of Commons. That said, checking in the whole mess, as Phil
suggests, seems perfectly doable and should not preclude updating parts of
the tree in quite a similar fashion as how updating a given component's
site
. This is because the process of
updating the site would require first doing a diff and then deleting items
that are not included in the new version. Someone created a Maven plugin to
try to do this but it is not the way I would want to go at all.
Ralph
On Dec 10, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
I
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Luc Maisonobe luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
Hi all,
Le 04/12/2012 23:54, Matt Benson a écrit :
Well, it looks like the most comfortable avenue for everyone is Commons
[weaver]. IMO [weaver] would look like a framework for implementing any
kind of code
] currently
lacks?; thirdly, does any of us already have the expertise to add these?
Thanks,
Matt
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote:
Le 29/11/2012 19:12, Matt Benson a écrit :
This would go back to the idea of something like a BCEL library
to allow different libs to be plugged in? BCEL,
ASM... Or do do we have to pick one?
Gary
On Dec 4, 2012, at 17:55, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it looks like the most comfortable avenue for everyone is Commons
[weaver]. IMO [weaver] would look like a framework for implementing
.
Emmanuel Bourg
[1] http://projectlombok.org
[2] http://projectlombok.org/features
[3] https://github.com/peichhorn/lombok-pg/wiki
[4] http://peichhorn.github.com/lombok-pg/SwingInvoke.html
Le 28/11/2012 21:44, Matt Benson a écrit :
Hi all,
As long as I've been part
, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Emmanuel Bourg ebo...@apache.org wrote:
Le 29/11/2012 16:41, Matt Benson a écrit :
Interesting; I apparently hadn't looked at Lombok apparently since
they've
added the @DoPrivileged annotation (pretty sure it wasn't always there).
You probably looked in the core
Hi all,
As long as I've been part of the Commons community I don't know that I've
encountered this exact situation: a committer adds some code to the
sandbox that is more or less complete. I don't know precisely what
requirements must be met before we promote [privilizer] to proper. We seem
to
Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.comwrote:
Another aspect to consider is would this new privalizer component (not
crazy about the name ATM) fit in an existing Commons component?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
As long as I've been part
improving on the
name.
Gary
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gary,
Feel free to suggest one or more alternate names, and we can vote on
them! The intent is to quickly convey that the component equips your code
to run in a Java security constrained
: Matt Benson gudnabr...@gmail.com
To: Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com
Cc: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: [privilizer] promotion plan
Hi Gary,
Feel free to suggest one or more alternate names, and we can vote
301 - 400 of 931 matches
Mail list logo
