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 <fl...@gmail.com> on 2011/07/12 05:19:59 UTC
[lang] RC4 heads up
Heads up that I plan to tag and build an RC4 tomorrow.
Commit now, or raise your hand if you need me to delay.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC4 heads up
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
> 2/ UnicodeUnescaper
> Since JDK 1.7 "\u+0000" is a valid Unicode representation. The
> UnicodeUnescaper defines the OPTION "escapePlus" that allows also this plus
> character for all runtime versions i.e. currently the OPTION is superfluous
> in JDK 7. Should this option mean now, that the plus sing is only valid if
> the OPTION is set or that it depends on the runtime in the other case?
I've removed the option code. Now it'll handle \u0000 or \u+0000
(which is what it should have done anyway).
svn ci -m "Removing the option around whether or not to support the +
in \u+0000. JDK 7 now supports the + sign, so UnicodeUnescaper will
unescape \u0000 or \u+0000. "
Sending src/main/java/org/apache/commons/lang3/text/translate/UnicodeUnescaper.java
Sending src/test/java/org/apache/commons/lang3/text/translate/UnicodeUnescaperTest.java
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 1145851.
Thanks Jörg :)
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC4 heads up
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stephen Colebourne
>> <sc...@joda.org> wrote:
>>> On 12 July 2011 18:56, Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> 1/ FastDateFormat
>>>> The date format "yyyy yyy yy y" is formatted with JDK 7 as "2003 2003 03
>>>> 2003" instead of "2003 03 03 03". So, should FastDateFormat follow the
>>>> JDK in any case and adjust its result according the runtime?
>>>> Interestingly Javadoc states already for Java 6: "For formatting, if the
>>>> number of pattern letters is 2, the year is truncated to 2 digits;
>>>> otherwise it is interpreted as a number."
>>>
>>> I think that since this release is not compatible with previous
>>> releases, then [lang] should follow JDK 7 conventions only, with good
>>> javadoc about what it does.
>>
>> +1.
>
> Done. Please review Javadocs ;-)
>
Looks good :)
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC4 heads up
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> <sc...@joda.org> wrote:
>> On 12 July 2011 18:56, Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 1/ FastDateFormat
>>> The date format "yyyy yyy yy y" is formatted with JDK 7 as "2003 2003 03
>>> 2003" instead of "2003 03 03 03". So, should FastDateFormat follow the
>>> JDK in any case and adjust its result according the runtime?
>>> Interestingly Javadoc states already for Java 6: "For formatting, if the
>>> number of pattern letters is 2, the year is truncated to 2 digits;
>>> otherwise it is interpreted as a number."
>>
>> I think that since this release is not compatible with previous
>> releases, then [lang] should follow JDK 7 conventions only, with good
>> javadoc about what it does.
>
> +1.
Done. Please review Javadocs ;-)
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC4 heads up
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stephen Colebourne
<sc...@joda.org> wrote:
> On 12 July 2011 18:56, Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 1/ FastDateFormat
>> The date format "yyyy yyy yy y" is formatted with JDK 7 as "2003 2003 03
>> 2003" instead of "2003 03 03 03". So, should FastDateFormat follow the JDK
>> in any case and adjust its result according the runtime? Interestingly
>> Javadoc states already for Java 6: "For formatting, if the number of pattern
>> letters is 2, the year is truncated to 2 digits; otherwise it is interpreted
>> as a number."
>
> I think that since this release is not compatible with previous
> releases, then [lang] should follow JDK 7 conventions only, with good
> javadoc about what it does.
+1.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC4 heads up
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@scalaris.com>.
Hi Paul,
Paul Benedict wrote:
> You sure it's not a bug in the JDK? Just asking. The results are curious.
I asked that myself. Javadoc of the JDK can be interpreted this way.
- Jörg
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> <sc...@joda.org> wrote:
>> On 12 July 2011 18:56, Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 1/ FastDateFormat
>>> The date format "yyyy yyy yy y" is formatted with JDK 7 as "2003 2003 03
>>> 2003" instead of "2003 03 03 03". So, should FastDateFormat follow the
>>> JDK in any case and adjust its result according the runtime?
>>> Interestingly Javadoc states already for Java 6: "For formatting, if the
>>> number of pattern letters is 2, the year is truncated to 2 digits;
>>> otherwise it is interpreted as a number."
>>
>> I think that since this release is not compatible with previous
>> releases, then [lang] should follow JDK 7 conventions only, with good
>> javadoc about what it does.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC4 heads up
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
You sure it's not a bug in the JDK? Just asking. The results are curious.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Stephen Colebourne
<sc...@joda.org> wrote:
> On 12 July 2011 18:56, Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 1/ FastDateFormat
>> The date format "yyyy yyy yy y" is formatted with JDK 7 as "2003 2003 03
>> 2003" instead of "2003 03 03 03". So, should FastDateFormat follow the JDK
>> in any case and adjust its result according the runtime? Interestingly
>> Javadoc states already for Java 6: "For formatting, if the number of pattern
>> letters is 2, the year is truncated to 2 digits; otherwise it is interpreted
>> as a number."
>
> I think that since this release is not compatible with previous
> releases, then [lang] should follow JDK 7 conventions only, with good
> javadoc about what it does.
>
> Stephen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC4 heads up
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@joda.org>.
On 12 July 2011 18:56, Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
> 1/ FastDateFormat
> The date format "yyyy yyy yy y" is formatted with JDK 7 as "2003 2003 03
> 2003" instead of "2003 03 03 03". So, should FastDateFormat follow the JDK
> in any case and adjust its result according the runtime? Interestingly
> Javadoc states already for Java 6: "For formatting, if the number of pattern
> letters is 2, the year is truncated to 2 digits; otherwise it is interpreted
> as a number."
I think that since this release is not compatible with previous
releases, then [lang] should follow JDK 7 conventions only, with good
javadoc about what it does.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [lang] RC4 heads up
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de>.
Hi Hen,
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Heads up that I plan to tag and build an RC4 tomorrow.
>
> Commit now, or raise your hand if you need me to delay.
I have a look into the two JDK 7 problems. What do you all recommend?
1/ FastDateFormat
The date format "yyyy yyy yy y" is formatted with JDK 7 as "2003 2003 03
2003" instead of "2003 03 03 03". So, should FastDateFormat follow the JDK
in any case and adjust its result according the runtime? Interestingly
Javadoc states already for Java 6: "For formatting, if the number of pattern
letters is 2, the year is truncated to 2 digits; otherwise it is interpreted
as a number."
2/ UnicodeUnescaper
Since JDK 1.7 "\u+0000" is a valid Unicode representation. The
UnicodeUnescaper defines the OPTION "escapePlus" that allows also this plus
character for all runtime versions i.e. currently the OPTION is superfluous
in JDK 7. Should this option mean now, that the plus sing is only valid if
the OPTION is set or that it depends on the runtime in the other case?
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org