You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com> on 2003/08/16 12:53:14 UTC
[lang] Words - for 2.0
In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
WordWrapUtils is broken.
The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for two
purposes.
1) Splitting the input string
2) Adding newlines to the output string
This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or fixed (not
preferred, as there are various issues)
---
Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name.
I propose:
1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much better
functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course you
could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that much.)
I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of capitaliseAllWords
will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small group of
people and postpone the change to 2.1.
Opinions?
Stephen
Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> WordWrapUtils is broken.
...
> This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or fixed (not
> preferred, as there are various issues)
I have an implementation of Unicode TR14 for word wrapping
almost ready. There are some fine points still to resolve though
(Some width issues for east asean characters and how to handle
combining markers. Well taking this into account the current
class is even more broken.) Preparing the tables from the report
was painful, I feel like a hero now.
I'd vote for pulling the class and move it elsewhere.
...
> This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much better
> functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course you
> could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that much.)
Other features for [text]
- parsing text into words
- spell checking
- character normalization (well, there is icu4j)
- glyph shaping
- hyphenation
- word inflection
- morphological analysis, grammatical analysis
- various tools for handling data necessary for the tasks above
I can contribute some code for most of the above. FOP would be
the first user of a commons hyphenation component and and will
probably also take advantage of character normalization in the long
term.
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> WordWrapUtils is broken.
...
> This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or fixed (not
> preferred, as there are various issues)
I have an implementation of Unicode TR14 for word wrapping
almost ready. There are some fine points still to resolve though
(Some width issues for east asean characters and how to handle
combining markers. Well taking this into account the current
class is even more broken.) Preparing the tables from the report
was painful, I feel like a hero now.
I'd vote for pulling the class and move it elsewhere.
...
> This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much better
> functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course you
> could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that much.)
Other features for [text]
- parsing text into words
- spell checking
- character normalization (well, there is icu4j)
- glyph shaping
- hyphenation
- word inflection
- morphological analysis, grammatical analysis
- various tools for handling data necessary for the tasks above
I can contribute some code for most of the above. FOP would be
the first user of a commons hyphenation component and and will
probably also take advantage of character normalization in the long
term.
J.Pietschmann
Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> So, not too aarggh then, just pull WordWrapUtils ;-))
+1. I agree with Hen's views on WordUtils.
Phil
>
> (The other stuff this morning was all javadoc except for ToStringStyle where
> a method rename took place with deprecation)
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
>
>
>
>>
>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
>>
>>*aarggh* :)
>>
>>
>>>WordWrapUtils is broken.
>>
>>No no no. It's a feature.
>>
>>
>>>The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for two
>>>purposes.
>>>1) Splitting the input string
>>>2) Adding newlines to the output string
>>>
>>>This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or fixed
>>
> (not
>
>>>preferred, as there are various issues)
>>
>>+1 to pulled out for consideration for 2.1/other.
>>
>>
>>>Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name.
>>>I propose:
>>>1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
>>
>>+1 on WordUtils. More generic.
>>
>>
>>>2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
>>>3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
>>>4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
>>
>>+1 for 2.1/3.0.
>>
>>
>>>This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much better
>>>functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course you
>>>could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that
>>
> much.)
>
>>-1 to [text] taking the above until [text] is ready for 1.0. I am +1 for a
>>[text], in the same way I'm +1 for [math], but I don't want us to
>>deprecate our methods until [math] releases at 1.0 with our methods
>>included.
>>
>>
>>>I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of
>>
> capitaliseAllWords
>
>>>will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small group of
>>>people and postpone the change to 2.1.
>>>
>>>Opinions?
>>
>>There are going to be changes on the new features before 2.1/3.0, and
>>it's going to be a year probably until we have a 3.0 out [though 2.0.1 or
>>2.1 might be quicker]. I may be being lazy, but I don't think that going
>>with WordUtils right now would affect too many people and we don't really
>>have enough knowledge right now to get it right for 2.0.
>>
>>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] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> So, not too aarggh then, just pull WordWrapUtils ;-))
+1. I agree with Hen's views on WordUtils.
Phil
>
> (The other stuff this morning was all javadoc except for ToStringStyle where
> a method rename took place with deprecation)
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
>
>
>
>>
>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
>>
>>*aarggh* :)
>>
>>
>>>WordWrapUtils is broken.
>>
>>No no no. It's a feature.
>>
>>
>>>The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for two
>>>purposes.
>>>1) Splitting the input string
>>>2) Adding newlines to the output string
>>>
>>>This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or fixed
>>
> (not
>
>>>preferred, as there are various issues)
>>
>>+1 to pulled out for consideration for 2.1/other.
>>
>>
>>>Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name.
>>>I propose:
>>>1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
>>
>>+1 on WordUtils. More generic.
>>
>>
>>>2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
>>>3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
>>>4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
>>
>>+1 for 2.1/3.0.
>>
>>
>>>This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much better
>>>functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course you
>>>could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that
>>
> much.)
>
>>-1 to [text] taking the above until [text] is ready for 1.0. I am +1 for a
>>[text], in the same way I'm +1 for [math], but I don't want us to
>>deprecate our methods until [math] releases at 1.0 with our methods
>>included.
>>
>>
>>>I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of
>>
> capitaliseAllWords
>
>>>will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small group of
>>>people and postpone the change to 2.1.
>>>
>>>Opinions?
>>
>>There are going to be changes on the new features before 2.1/3.0, and
>>it's going to be a year probably until we have a 3.0 out [though 2.0.1 or
>>2.1 might be quicker]. I may be being lazy, but I don't think that going
>>with WordUtils right now would affect too many people and we don't really
>>have enough knowledge right now to get it right for 2.0.
>>
>>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] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
"Phil Steitz" <ph...@steitz.com> writes:
>Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
>> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>>
>> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
>> under 1.2?
>FWIW, I have done this both ways with current sources -- build w/ 1.4,
>run tests using 1.2 and vice versa. Both work for me. I also ran
>1.4-compiled tests on 1.3 and that worked as well. I did this earlier
Please try the 1.3.1 JDK from blackdown as e.g. daedalus.apache.org. I have
had problems with 1.4 built jars from ibiblio (e.g. excalibur-components)
with this JDK.
For Turbine, I've decided to make both JDK 1.3.1 and JDK 1.4.2 built
jars available.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
"Dominate!! Dominate!! Eat your young and aggregate! I have grotty silicon!"
-- AOL CD when played backwards (User Friendly - 200-10-15)
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
"Phil Steitz" <ph...@steitz.com> writes:
>Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
>> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>>
>> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
>> under 1.2?
>FWIW, I have done this both ways with current sources -- build w/ 1.4,
>run tests using 1.2 and vice versa. Both work for me. I also ran
>1.4-compiled tests on 1.3 and that worked as well. I did this earlier
Please try the 1.3.1 JDK from blackdown as e.g. daedalus.apache.org. I have
had problems with 1.4 built jars from ibiblio (e.g. excalibur-components)
with this JDK.
For Turbine, I've decided to make both JDK 1.3.1 and JDK 1.4.2 built
jars available.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
"Dominate!! Dominate!! Eat your young and aggregate! I have grotty silicon!"
-- AOL CD when played backwards (User Friendly - 200-10-15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>
> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
> under 1.2?
FWIW, I have done this both ways with current sources -- build w/ 1.4,
run tests using 1.2 and vice versa. Both work for me. I also ran
1.4-compiled tests on 1.3 and that worked as well. I did this earlier
today thinking that I might see performance differences, but I did not
(i.e., the 1.2-compiled code seems to run as fast under 1.4 as the 1.4
compiled version. <disclaimer> This is based on just 2 runs with each
config so is by no means scientific. Also, our unit tests are obviously
not performance tests </disclaimer>).
Phil
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
>
>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>+1 to RC3
>>>
>>>BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
>>>optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
>>
> built
>
>>>using 1.4 instead?
>>
>>Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
>>
>>Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
>>merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
>>could repeat with the -src jar.
>>
>>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] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>
> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
> under 1.2?
FWIW, I have done this both ways with current sources -- build w/ 1.4,
run tests using 1.2 and vice versa. Both work for me. I also ran
1.4-compiled tests on 1.3 and that worked as well. I did this earlier
today thinking that I might see performance differences, but I did not
(i.e., the 1.2-compiled code seems to run as fast under 1.4 as the 1.4
compiled version. <disclaimer> This is based on just 2 runs with each
config so is by no means scientific. Also, our unit tests are obviously
not performance tests </disclaimer>).
Phil
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
>
>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>+1 to RC3
>>>
>>>BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
>>>optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
>>
> built
>
>>>using 1.4 instead?
>>
>>Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
>>
>>Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
>>merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
>>could repeat with the -src jar.
>>
>>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] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
There are known problems with binaries built on JDK 1.4 being run on JDK
1.2. The primary issue is that a JDK 1.4 class may have a more specific
signature than a JDK 1.2 method, so the JDK 1.4 compile will use the more
specific signature, which isn't there on JDK 1.2. I compile the Apache
James builds with JDK 1.3, and our javadocs with JDK 1.4.
--- Noel
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
How about the -target 1.1 flag to the 1.4 compiler?
Ant allows us to pass this, and apparantly 1.1 means JDK's 1.1->1.3. So we
would javadoc with 1.4 and build with 1.4 for 1.1->1.3.
No idea how much of a guarentee that is.
Hen
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>
> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
> under 1.2?
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to RC3
> > >
> > > BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
> > > optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
> built
> > > using 1.4 instead?
> >
> > Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
> >
> > Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
> > merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
> > could repeat with the -src jar.
> >
> > 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] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
There are known problems with binaries built on JDK 1.4 being run on JDK
1.2. The primary issue is that a JDK 1.4 class may have a more specific
signature than a JDK 1.2 method, so the JDK 1.4 compile will use the more
specific signature, which isn't there on JDK 1.2. I compile the Apache
James builds with JDK 1.3, and our javadocs with JDK 1.4.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
How about the -target 1.1 flag to the 1.4 compiler?
Ant allows us to pass this, and apparantly 1.1 means JDK's 1.1->1.3. So we
would javadoc with 1.4 and build with 1.4 for 1.1->1.3.
No idea how much of a guarentee that is.
Hen
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
> Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
>
> How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
> under 1.2?
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to RC3
> > >
> > > BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
> > > optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
> built
> > > using 1.4 instead?
> >
> > Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
> >
> > Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
> > merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
> > could repeat with the -src jar.
> >
> > 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] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
under 1.2?
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > +1 to RC3
> >
> > BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
> > optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
built
> > using 1.4 instead?
>
> Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
>
> Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
> merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
> could repeat with the -src jar.
>
> Hen
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: [lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
Can we guarantee that the 1.4 built version is bytecode compatable with 1.2?
Its not nice whichever way around you do it.
How about build under 1.4, then use the jar to run the test cases against
under 1.2?
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > +1 to RC3
> >
> > BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
> > optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be
built
> > using 1.4 instead?
>
> Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
>
> Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
> merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
> could repeat with the -src jar.
>
> 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
[lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> +1 to RC3
>
> BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
> optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be built
> using 1.4 instead?
Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
could repeat with the -src jar.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
[lang] 1.2 vs 1.4 Was: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> +1 to RC3
>
> BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
> optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be built
> using 1.4 instead?
Ack. So we want a 1.2 built jar and a 1.4 built javadoc?
Maybe I should just go ahead and use 1.4 to distribute. While I could
merge a 1.4 and 1.2 set of builds, it wouldn't be something the user
could repeat with the -src jar.
Hen
Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
+1 to RC3
BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be built
using 1.4 instead?
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
>
> I'd just woken up :)
>
> I've emailed Henning [who originally asked for WordWrapUtils to be
> released] so that he can react.
>
> Shall I build an RC3 with the new javadoc and WordWrapUtils removed?
>
> Hen
>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > So, not too aarggh then, just pull WordWrapUtils ;-))
> >
> > (The other stuff this morning was all javadoc except for ToStringStyle
where
> > a method rename took place with deprecation)
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 5:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > >
> > > > In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
> > >
> > > *aarggh* :)
> > >
> > > > WordWrapUtils is broken.
> > >
> > > No no no. It's a feature.
> > >
> > > > The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for
two
> > > > purposes.
> > > > 1) Splitting the input string
> > > > 2) Adding newlines to the output string
> > > >
> > > > This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or
fixed
> > (not
> > > > preferred, as there are various issues)
> > >
> > > +1 to pulled out for consideration for 2.1/other.
> > >
> > > > Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name.
> > > > I propose:
> > > > 1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
> > >
> > > +1 on WordUtils. More generic.
> > >
> > > > 2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > > > 3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > > > 4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
> > >
> > > +1 for 2.1/3.0.
> > >
> > > > This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much
better
> > > > functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course
you
> > > > could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that
> > much.)
> > >
> > > -1 to [text] taking the above until [text] is ready for 1.0. I am +1
for a
> > > [text], in the same way I'm +1 for [math], but I don't want us to
> > > deprecate our methods until [math] releases at 1.0 with our methods
> > > included.
> > >
> > > > I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of
> > capitaliseAllWords
> > > > will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small
group of
> > > > people and postpone the change to 2.1.
> > > >
> > > > Opinions?
> > >
> > > There are going to be changes on the new features before 2.1/3.0, and
> > > it's going to be a year probably until we have a 3.0 out [though 2.0.1
or
> > > 2.1 might be quicker]. I may be being lazy, but I don't think that
going
> > > with WordUtils right now would affect too many people and we don't
really
> > > have enough knowledge right now to get it right for 2.0.
> > >
> > > 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] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
+1 to RC3
BTW, is there a problem with building with 1.2.2 if our javadoc has been
optimised for 1.4? The javadoc compiler has changed. Can the docs be built
using 1.4 instead?
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
>
> I'd just woken up :)
>
> I've emailed Henning [who originally asked for WordWrapUtils to be
> released] so that he can react.
>
> Shall I build an RC3 with the new javadoc and WordWrapUtils removed?
>
> Hen
>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > So, not too aarggh then, just pull WordWrapUtils ;-))
> >
> > (The other stuff this morning was all javadoc except for ToStringStyle
where
> > a method rename took place with deprecation)
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 5:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > >
> > > > In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
> > >
> > > *aarggh* :)
> > >
> > > > WordWrapUtils is broken.
> > >
> > > No no no. It's a feature.
> > >
> > > > The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for
two
> > > > purposes.
> > > > 1) Splitting the input string
> > > > 2) Adding newlines to the output string
> > > >
> > > > This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or
fixed
> > (not
> > > > preferred, as there are various issues)
> > >
> > > +1 to pulled out for consideration for 2.1/other.
> > >
> > > > Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name.
> > > > I propose:
> > > > 1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
> > >
> > > +1 on WordUtils. More generic.
> > >
> > > > 2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > > > 3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > > > 4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
> > >
> > > +1 for 2.1/3.0.
> > >
> > > > This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much
better
> > > > functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course
you
> > > > could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that
> > much.)
> > >
> > > -1 to [text] taking the above until [text] is ready for 1.0. I am +1
for a
> > > [text], in the same way I'm +1 for [math], but I don't want us to
> > > deprecate our methods until [math] releases at 1.0 with our methods
> > > included.
> > >
> > > > I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of
> > capitaliseAllWords
> > > > will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small
group of
> > > > people and postpone the change to 2.1.
> > > >
> > > > Opinions?
> > >
> > > There are going to be changes on the new features before 2.1/3.0, and
> > > it's going to be a year probably until we have a 3.0 out [though 2.0.1
or
> > > 2.1 might be quicker]. I may be being lazy, but I don't think that
going
> > > with WordUtils right now would affect too many people and we don't
really
> > > have enough knowledge right now to get it right for 2.0.
> > >
> > > 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] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
I'd just woken up :)
I've emailed Henning [who originally asked for WordWrapUtils to be
released] so that he can react.
Shall I build an RC3 with the new javadoc and WordWrapUtils removed?
Hen
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> So, not too aarggh then, just pull WordWrapUtils ;-))
>
> (The other stuff this morning was all javadoc except for ToStringStyle where
> a method rename took place with deprecation)
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >
> > > In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
> >
> > *aarggh* :)
> >
> > > WordWrapUtils is broken.
> >
> > No no no. It's a feature.
> >
> > > The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for two
> > > purposes.
> > > 1) Splitting the input string
> > > 2) Adding newlines to the output string
> > >
> > > This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or fixed
> (not
> > > preferred, as there are various issues)
> >
> > +1 to pulled out for consideration for 2.1/other.
> >
> > > Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name.
> > > I propose:
> > > 1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
> >
> > +1 on WordUtils. More generic.
> >
> > > 2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > > 3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > > 4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
> >
> > +1 for 2.1/3.0.
> >
> > > This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much better
> > > functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course you
> > > could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that
> much.)
> >
> > -1 to [text] taking the above until [text] is ready for 1.0. I am +1 for a
> > [text], in the same way I'm +1 for [math], but I don't want us to
> > deprecate our methods until [math] releases at 1.0 with our methods
> > included.
> >
> > > I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of
> capitaliseAllWords
> > > will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small group of
> > > people and postpone the change to 2.1.
> > >
> > > Opinions?
> >
> > There are going to be changes on the new features before 2.1/3.0, and
> > it's going to be a year probably until we have a 3.0 out [though 2.0.1 or
> > 2.1 might be quicker]. I may be being lazy, but I don't think that going
> > with WordUtils right now would affect too many people and we don't really
> > have enough knowledge right now to get it right for 2.0.
> >
> > 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] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
I'd just woken up :)
I've emailed Henning [who originally asked for WordWrapUtils to be
released] so that he can react.
Shall I build an RC3 with the new javadoc and WordWrapUtils removed?
Hen
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> So, not too aarggh then, just pull WordWrapUtils ;-))
>
> (The other stuff this morning was all javadoc except for ToStringStyle where
> a method rename took place with deprecation)
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >
> > > In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
> >
> > *aarggh* :)
> >
> > > WordWrapUtils is broken.
> >
> > No no no. It's a feature.
> >
> > > The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for two
> > > purposes.
> > > 1) Splitting the input string
> > > 2) Adding newlines to the output string
> > >
> > > This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or fixed
> (not
> > > preferred, as there are various issues)
> >
> > +1 to pulled out for consideration for 2.1/other.
> >
> > > Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name.
> > > I propose:
> > > 1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
> >
> > +1 on WordUtils. More generic.
> >
> > > 2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > > 3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > > 4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
> >
> > +1 for 2.1/3.0.
> >
> > > This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much better
> > > functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course you
> > > could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that
> much.)
> >
> > -1 to [text] taking the above until [text] is ready for 1.0. I am +1 for a
> > [text], in the same way I'm +1 for [math], but I don't want us to
> > deprecate our methods until [math] releases at 1.0 with our methods
> > included.
> >
> > > I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of
> capitaliseAllWords
> > > will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small group of
> > > people and postpone the change to 2.1.
> > >
> > > Opinions?
> >
> > There are going to be changes on the new features before 2.1/3.0, and
> > it's going to be a year probably until we have a 3.0 out [though 2.0.1 or
> > 2.1 might be quicker]. I may be being lazy, but I don't think that going
> > with WordUtils right now would affect too many people and we don't really
> > have enough knowledge right now to get it right for 2.0.
> >
> > 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] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
So, not too aarggh then, just pull WordWrapUtils ;-))
(The other stuff this morning was all javadoc except for ToStringStyle where
a method rename took place with deprecation)
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
>
> *aarggh* :)
>
> > WordWrapUtils is broken.
>
> No no no. It's a feature.
>
> > The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for two
> > purposes.
> > 1) Splitting the input string
> > 2) Adding newlines to the output string
> >
> > This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or fixed
(not
> > preferred, as there are various issues)
>
> +1 to pulled out for consideration for 2.1/other.
>
> > Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name.
> > I propose:
> > 1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
>
> +1 on WordUtils. More generic.
>
> > 2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > 3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > 4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
>
> +1 for 2.1/3.0.
>
> > This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much better
> > functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course you
> > could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that
much.)
>
> -1 to [text] taking the above until [text] is ready for 1.0. I am +1 for a
> [text], in the same way I'm +1 for [math], but I don't want us to
> deprecate our methods until [math] releases at 1.0 with our methods
> included.
>
> > I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of
capitaliseAllWords
> > will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small group of
> > people and postpone the change to 2.1.
> >
> > Opinions?
>
> There are going to be changes on the new features before 2.1/3.0, and
> it's going to be a year probably until we have a 3.0 out [though 2.0.1 or
> 2.1 might be quicker]. I may be being lazy, but I don't think that going
> with WordUtils right now would affect too many people and we don't really
> have enough knowledge right now to get it right for 2.0.
>
> Hen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
So, not too aarggh then, just pull WordWrapUtils ;-))
(The other stuff this morning was all javadoc except for ToStringStyle where
a method rename took place with deprecation)
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
>
> *aarggh* :)
>
> > WordWrapUtils is broken.
>
> No no no. It's a feature.
>
> > The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for two
> > purposes.
> > 1) Splitting the input string
> > 2) Adding newlines to the output string
> >
> > This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or fixed
(not
> > preferred, as there are various issues)
>
> +1 to pulled out for consideration for 2.1/other.
>
> > Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name.
> > I propose:
> > 1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
>
> +1 on WordUtils. More generic.
>
> > 2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > 3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> > 4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
>
> +1 for 2.1/3.0.
>
> > This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much better
> > functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course you
> > could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that
much.)
>
> -1 to [text] taking the above until [text] is ready for 1.0. I am +1 for a
> [text], in the same way I'm +1 for [math], but I don't want us to
> deprecate our methods until [math] releases at 1.0 with our methods
> included.
>
> > I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of
capitaliseAllWords
> > will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small group of
> > people and postpone the change to 2.1.
> >
> > Opinions?
>
> There are going to be changes on the new features before 2.1/3.0, and
> it's going to be a year probably until we have a 3.0 out [though 2.0.1 or
> 2.1 might be quicker]. I may be being lazy, but I don't think that going
> with WordUtils right now would affect too many people and we don't really
> have enough knowledge right now to get it right for 2.0.
>
> 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] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
*aarggh* :)
> WordWrapUtils is broken.
No no no. It's a feature.
> The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for two
> purposes.
> 1) Splitting the input string
> 2) Adding newlines to the output string
>
> This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or fixed (not
> preferred, as there are various issues)
+1 to pulled out for consideration for 2.1/other.
> Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name.
> I propose:
> 1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
+1 on WordUtils. More generic.
> 2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> 3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> 4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
+1 for 2.1/3.0.
> This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much better
> functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course you
> could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that much.)
-1 to [text] taking the above until [text] is ready for 1.0. I am +1 for a
[text], in the same way I'm +1 for [math], but I don't want us to
deprecate our methods until [math] releases at 1.0 with our methods
included.
> I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of capitaliseAllWords
> will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small group of
> people and postpone the change to 2.1.
>
> Opinions?
There are going to be changes on the new features before 2.1/3.0, and
it's going to be a year probably until we have a 3.0 out [though 2.0.1 or
2.1 might be quicker]. I may be being lazy, but I don't think that going
with WordUtils right now would affect too many people and we don't really
have enough knowledge right now to get it right for 2.0.
Hen
Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> In examining the release, I found I need to annoy everyone again.
*aarggh* :)
> WordWrapUtils is broken.
No no no. It's a feature.
> The algorithm relies on a newLineChars parameter that is used for two
> purposes.
> 1) Splitting the input string
> 2) Adding newlines to the output string
>
> This is a new class, so it should either be pulled (preferred) or fixed (not
> preferred, as there are various issues)
+1 to pulled out for consideration for 2.1/other.
> Related issue - WordWrapUtils is too specific a name.
> I propose:
> 1) changing it to WordUtils (or StringWordUtils)
+1 on WordUtils. More generic.
> 2) moving capitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> 3) moving uncapitalizeAllWords to WordUtils
> 4) moving swapCase to WordUtils
+1 for 2.1/3.0.
> This would help reduce the size of StringUtils, and provide much better
> functional grouping. There is lots we can do with words. (Of course you
> could argue for a separate [text] project, but I doubt there is that much.)
-1 to [text] taking the above until [text] is ready for 1.0. I am +1 for a
[text], in the same way I'm +1 for [math], but I don't want us to
deprecate our methods until [math] releases at 1.0 with our methods
included.
> I would like to do this for 2.0, as otherwise users of capitaliseAllWords
> will have to change twice. However we could say that is a small group of
> people and postpone the change to 2.1.
>
> Opinions?
There are going to be changes on the new features before 2.1/3.0, and
it's going to be a year probably until we have a 3.0 out [though 2.0.1 or
2.1 might be quicker]. I may be being lazy, but I don't think that going
with WordUtils right now would affect too many people and we don't really
have enough knowledge right now to get it right for 2.0.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org