For thought: In "Coldfusion world" it's stringFind(String str, String search, int ordinal) stringFind(String str, String search, int ordinal, int start) -and- stringFindNoCase(String str, String search, int ordinal) stringFindNoCase(String str, String search, int ordinal, int start)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 1:56 PM > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > Subject: RE: [lang] nIndexOf/ordinalIndexOf > > > Just for arg's sake: > > 1) ordinalIndexOf (String str, String searchStr, int ordinal) > 2) indexOfOrdinal (String str, String searchStr, int ordinal) > > Gary > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Arun Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 10:02 > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: [lang] nIndexOf/ordinalIndexOf > > > > I've got to say that I like the parallelism with the other methods. > > > > For what it's worth, I like: ordinalIndexOf(String str, String > searchStr, > > int ordinal) > > > > -AMT > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:27 PM > > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2] > > > > > > Inline: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 23:11 > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2] > > > > > > Gary Gregory wrote: > > > > Ah, well, in that sprit, then comments on > > > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22719 would be > > > appreciated > > > > but I do not expect this to go in 2.0 unless other folks like/need > > > > it. > > > > > > Looks useful to me. I would go ahead and add it. Here are a couple of > > > small comments: > > > > > > 1. Yes, the name sucks, but nothing nice jumps out at me. Of the > > > alternatives that you have listed, I like "indexOfOccurrence" the > > > best. Another one to consider might be "ordinalIndexOf". > > > > b/w the 2, I like indexOfOccurrence better but let's see what > other folks > > like. > > > > > > > > 2. Make sure to change the method names in the javadoc examples to > > > match the chosen name. Also, the last two examples should probably be > > > replaced by one using a * for the integer argument. > > > > I am not fond of that one since I would need to put a "x" or "i" or > > something that is not the real answer to the example and since the point > > of the method is to pass in a count, an example for both 1 and > 2 is nice. > > I could add another entry with * and "i" I guess. > > > > gg > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > > >>From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 20:24 > > > >>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > >>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2] > > > >> > > > >>Gary Gregory wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>I'll take the blame for causing any confusion on this one since I > > > >>>had committed these Javadoc changes "during" the vote, which was > > > >>>made more difficult due to the extremely long email delays caused > > > >>>by the current > > > >> > > > >>batch > > > >> > > > >>>of viruses going 'round. > > > >>> > > > >>>My thought was that we were indeed voting on the build based on > > > >>>tagged sources and that any new commits would be in a post >2.0 > > > >>>release (even though, these changes being Javadoc changes are > > > >>>"harmless" and > > > >> > > > >>beneficial to > > > >> > > > >>>the release IMHO ;-) > > > >>> > > > >>>If we want to implement a code freeze in our environment on top of > > > using > > > >>>tags, we could do that. I guess we'd have to vote on it too :-) > > > >> > > > >>Sorry if I misunderstood things. I thought we were still adding > > > >>things to the release. I see no reason to freeze code if we have a > > > >>tagged release. I am +1 for releasing the code prior to the javadoc > > > >>changes that occurred during the vote or to adding them and > > > >>retagging. If that requires a new vote, then I am OK with that as > > > >>well. > > > >> > > > >>In any case, we should not have to stop everything as we wait for > > > >>the release to go. I would also very much like to see 2.0 get out > > > >>the door. > > > >> > > > >>Phil > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>Gary > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>-----Original Message----- > > > >>>>From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 00:00 > > > >>>>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > >>>>Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release of Commons Lang 2.0 [take 2] > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>Well, if there is a question about policy/process, why not just > > > freeze > > > >>>> > > > >>>>the > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>code and restart the vote? > > > >>>> > > > >>>>By tagging the CVS, he effectively has frozen the code for the > > > Release. > > > >>> > > > >>I > > > >> > > > >>>>was simply curious about the policy because, as I said, other > > > >>>>projects > > > >>> > > > >>are > > > >> > > > >>>>stricter. For example the HTTPd team has different rules > > > >>>>(http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html). > > > >>>> > > > >>>>A Release Manager makes a release build, and it is automatically > > > >>>>an > > > >>> > > > >>alpha. > > > >> > > > >>>>It becomes a beta release when at least three Committers have > > > >>>>voted > > > beta > > > >>>>status, and there are more +1 than -1. It becomes a GA release > > > >>>>when > > > at > > > >>>>least three Committers vote for GA (stable) status, and there are > > > >>>>more > > > >>> > > > >>+1 > > > >> > > > >>>>than -1. Notice that -1 is not a veto. Notice, also, that the > > > package > > > >>>>itself may go through multiple status changes, but no packaging > > > changes. > > > >>>>The only allowable change is renaming the file to reflect the > > > >>>>change > > > in > > > >>>>status; exceptions can be made if a change in the contents of the > > > >>> > > > >>tarball > > > >> > > > >>>>(e.g., someone forgot to add the LICENSE file). Otherwise, if a > > > change > > > >>> > > > >>in > > > >> > > > >>>>the CVS needs to be incorporated, it becomes a new release (with a > > > >>>>new vote). > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Other projects, such as Avalon, also roll jars and then vote on > > > >>>>them > > > as > > > >>> > > > >>a > > > >> > > > >>>>Release. So I was just asking to understand what is established > > > >>>>as > > > >>> > > > >>policy > > > >> > > > >>>>here. I wasn't challenging Henri's release. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> --- Noel > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>>>--- > > > >>>>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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
