Resending.

+1 to using 1.4 for at least the javadocs if not the whole build. 1.4 =
Better Javadoc (with the constant field values page) and better byte codes
perhaps too.

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:29
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [lang] Words - for 2.0
> 
> +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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to