You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> on 2003/08/18 04:56:33 UTC
[lang] RC3 released
http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
Changes I know of:
Some javadoc
WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils code
All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
I'm sure there were other ones though.
Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems with
them.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Michael Heuer <he...@acm.org>.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
>
> It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes
> into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
>
> However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
> deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
> whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) should be
> in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
>
> Solutions:
> 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
>
> 2) Don't release entire util subpackage
>
> 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
>
> 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Release 2.0 without ids.
Non-binding vote of course, but I think this is the best way to go.
A package lang.util doesn't make all that much sense, and it'd be nice to
get 2.0 out.
michael
>
> IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
> better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air - it
> gives us more design flexibility.
>
> Stephen
> (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
> >
> > Changes I know of:
> >
> > Some javadoc
> > WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
> code
> > All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
> >
> > I'm sure there were other ones though.
> >
> > Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems with
> > them.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Michael Heuer <he...@acm.org>.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
>
> It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes
> into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
>
> However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
> deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
> whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) should be
> in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
>
> Solutions:
> 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
>
> 2) Don't release entire util subpackage
>
> 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
>
> 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Release 2.0 without ids.
Non-binding vote of course, but I think this is the best way to go.
A package lang.util doesn't make all that much sense, and it'd be nice to
get 2.0 out.
michael
>
> IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
> better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air - it
> gives us more design flexibility.
>
> Stephen
> (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
> >
> > Changes I know of:
> >
> > Some javadoc
> > WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
> code
> > All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
> >
> > I'm sure there were other ones though.
> >
> > Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems with
> > them.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
Yeah. Hard to hang onto.
> It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes
> into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
>
> However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
> deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
> whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) should be
> in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
>
> Solutions:
> 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
Sometimes there are hints?
> 2) Don't release entire util subpackage
-1. Good reason why util is a bad name, 2 classes are held up by one with
absolutely nothing in common.
> 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
>
> 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Release 2.0 without ids.
+1.
> IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
> better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air - it
> gives us more design flexibility.
Me too. RC4 coming up I think.
> (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
Let's call it 2.x! Numbers are so limiting.
Hen
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
Yeah. Hard to hang onto.
> It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes
> into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
>
> However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
> deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
> whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) should be
> in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
>
> Solutions:
> 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
Sometimes there are hints?
> 2) Don't release entire util subpackage
-1. Good reason why util is a bad name, 2 classes are held up by one with
absolutely nothing in common.
> 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
>
> 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Release 2.0 without ids.
+1.
> IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
> better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air - it
> gives us more design flexibility.
Me too. RC4 coming up I think.
> (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
Let's call it 2.x! Numbers are so limiting.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Phil Steitz <st...@yahoo.com>.
--- Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
>
> It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff
> goes
> into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
>
> However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
> deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
> whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) should
> be
> in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
>
> Solutions:
> 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
>
> 2) Don't release entire util subpackage
>
> 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang
> package.
> Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
>
> 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang
> package.
> Release 2.0 without ids.
+1
Phil
>
> IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
> better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air -
> it
> gives us more design flexibility.
>
> Stephen
> (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
> >
> > Changes I know of:
> >
> > Some javadoc
> > WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
> code
> > All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
> >
> > I'm sure there were other ones though.
> >
> > Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems
> with
> > them.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Phil Steitz <st...@yahoo.com>.
--- Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
>
> It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff
> goes
> into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
>
> However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
> deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
> whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) should
> be
> in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
>
> Solutions:
> 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
>
> 2) Don't release entire util subpackage
>
> 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang
> package.
> Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
>
> 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang
> package.
> Release 2.0 without ids.
+1
Phil
>
> IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
> better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air -
> it
> gives us more design flexibility.
>
> Stephen
> (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
> >
> > Changes I know of:
> >
> > Some javadoc
> > WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
> code
> > All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
> >
> > I'm sure there were other ones though.
> >
> > Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems
> with
> > them.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
All looks good to me, thanks
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
>
> With 4 +1's, I've moved BitField and Validate up to the main package and
> have added the util package to my list of directories I remove before
> tagging.
>
> Ignoring whether we call it id, identifiers or whatever as simply removing
> util from builds matches my needs.
>
> Hen
>
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
> >
> > It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff
goes
> > into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
> >
> > However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
> > deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
> > whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate)
should be
> > in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
> >
> > Solutions:
> > 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
> >
> > 2) Don't release entire util subpackage
> >
> > 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang
package.
> > Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
> >
> > 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang
package.
> > Release 2.0 without ids.
> >
> > IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
> > better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the
air - it
> > gives us more design flexibility.
> >
> > Stephen
> > (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > > http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
> > >
> > > Changes I know of:
> > >
> > > Some javadoc
> > > WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
> > code
> > > All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
> > >
> > > I'm sure there were other ones though.
> > >
> > > Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems
with
> > > them.
> > >
> > > Hen
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
All looks good to me, thanks
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
>
> With 4 +1's, I've moved BitField and Validate up to the main package and
> have added the util package to my list of directories I remove before
> tagging.
>
> Ignoring whether we call it id, identifiers or whatever as simply removing
> util from builds matches my needs.
>
> Hen
>
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
> >
> > It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff
goes
> > into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
> >
> > However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
> > deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
> > whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate)
should be
> > in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
> >
> > Solutions:
> > 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
> >
> > 2) Don't release entire util subpackage
> >
> > 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang
package.
> > Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
> >
> > 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang
package.
> > Release 2.0 without ids.
> >
> > IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
> > better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the
air - it
> > gives us more design flexibility.
> >
> > Stephen
> > (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > > http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
> > >
> > > Changes I know of:
> > >
> > > Some javadoc
> > > WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
> > code
> > > All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
> > >
> > > I'm sure there were other ones though.
> > >
> > > Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems
with
> > > them.
> > >
> > > Hen
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
With 4 +1's, I've moved BitField and Validate up to the main package and
have added the util package to my list of directories I remove before
tagging.
Ignoring whether we call it id, identifiers or whatever as simply removing
util from builds matches my needs.
Hen
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
>
> It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes
> into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
>
> However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
> deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
> whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) should be
> in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
>
> Solutions:
> 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
>
> 2) Don't release entire util subpackage
>
> 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
>
> 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Release 2.0 without ids.
>
> IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
> better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air - it
> gives us more design flexibility.
>
> Stephen
> (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
> >
> > Changes I know of:
> >
> > Some javadoc
> > WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
> code
> > All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
> >
> > I'm sure there were other ones though.
> >
> > Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems with
> > them.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
With 4 +1's, I've moved BitField and Validate up to the main package and
have added the util package to my list of directories I remove before
tagging.
Ignoring whether we call it id, identifiers or whatever as simply removing
util from builds matches my needs.
Hen
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
>
> It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes
> into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
>
> However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
> deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
> whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) should be
> in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
>
> Solutions:
> 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
>
> 2) Don't release entire util subpackage
>
> 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
>
> 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
> Release 2.0 without ids.
>
> IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
> better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air - it
> gives us more design flexibility.
>
> Stephen
> (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
> >
> > Changes I know of:
> >
> > Some javadoc
> > WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
> code
> > All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
> >
> > I'm sure there were other ones though.
> >
> > Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems with
> > them.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes
into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) should be
in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
Solutions:
1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
2) Don't release entire util subpackage
3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
Release 2.0 without ids.
IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air - it
gives us more design flexibility.
Stephen
(who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
>
> Changes I know of:
>
> Some javadoc
> WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
code
> All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
>
> I'm sure there were other ones though.
>
> Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems with
> them.
>
> Hen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC3 released
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
Updated Javadoc in
- CharSetUtils
- StringUtils
- WordUtils
Removed method from CharSetUtils that was deprecated, but not in 1.0.1.
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
>
> Changes I know of:
>
> Some javadoc
> WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
code
> All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
>
> I'm sure there were other ones though.
>
> Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems with
> them.
>
> Hen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
The discussion over UUID makes me nervous.
It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes
into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense.
However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then
deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of
whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) should be
in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?)
Solutions:
1) Release as is, we can't predict the future
2) Don't release entire util subpackage
3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0.
4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package.
Release 2.0 without ids.
IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is
better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air - it
gives us more design flexibility.
Stephen
(who is now getting very tired of 2.0...)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
>
> Changes I know of:
>
> Some javadoc
> WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
code
> All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
>
> I'm sure there were other ones though.
>
> Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems with
> them.
>
> Hen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: [lang] RC3 released
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
Updated Javadoc in
- CharSetUtils
- StringUtils
- WordUtils
Removed method from CharSetUtils that was deprecated, but not in 1.0.1.
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/
>
> Changes I know of:
>
> Some javadoc
> WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils
code
> All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format
>
> I'm sure there were other ones though.
>
> Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems with
> them.
>
> Hen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>