> Any thoughts on having a 2.3 release that focuses on the 5 enum issues?
I'm +1. "Release early, release often", a la XP. Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 12:45 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: [lang] Pushing Enums back to 2.3? > > Any thoughts on having a 2.3 release that focuses on the 5 enum issues? > > * Bug LANG-262 Use of enum prevents a classloader from being > garbage collected resuling in out of memory exceptions. > * Bug LANG-153 [lang] Can't XMLDecode an Enum > * Bug LANG-76 [lang] EnumUtils.getEnum() doesn't work well in 1.5 > * Improvement LANG-258 Enum JavaDoc: 1) outline 5.0 native Enum > migration 2) warn not to use the switch() , 3) point out approaches > for persistence and gui > * Bug LANG-259 ValuedEnum.compareTo(Object other) not typesafe - it > easily could be... > > > So they would be pushed back to 2.3, leaving us with 8 issues in 2.2. > > Of those 8, LANG-180 and LANG-197 should be pushed back to 3.0. > Features that require discussion I think. > > * Improvement LANG-180 [lang] adding a StringUtils.replace method > that takes an array or List of replacement strings > * Improvement LANG-197 [lang] Extending VariableFormatter to use > FormatPatterns > > That leaves us with 6. > > Bug LANG-66 [lang] StringEscaper.escapeXml() escapes characters > 0x7f > Bug LANG-100 [lang] RandomStringUtils.random() family of methods > create invalid unicode sequences > Bug LANG-59 [lang] DateUtils.truncate method is buggy when dealing > with DST switching hours > Bug LANG-69 [lang] ToStringBuilder throws StackOverflowError when an > Object cycle exists > Bug LANG-140 [lang] DurationFormatUtils.formatPeriod() returns the > wrong result > Improvement LANG-226 [lang] Using ReflectionToStringBuilder and > excluding secure fields > > LANG-66 is easy enough to change assuming no one is against the idea. > Gary's reading of the XML spec suggested that we shouldn't be escaping > such characters but just letting them sit in the XML. > LANG-100 is confusing. I think it's solveable, but not sure any of us > know much about this part of unicode. > LANG-59 - I have no idea on fixing this. Needs code of some kind in > DateUtils.modify. If it's all that's left at the end, I'll be > recommending we push it to 3.0. > LANG-69 needs to be reworked - there's too much there and it breaks > another test. > LANG-140 needs some hacking to get a fix that isn't too ugly. > LANG-226 just needs a bit of cleanup. > > 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]
