On Sep 29, 2012, at 6:58, "Jörg Schaible" <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Gary Gregory wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jörg Schaible >> <joerg.schai...@gmx.de>wrote: >> >>> sebb wrote: > > [snip] > >>>> Unless there is a significant improvement across several Java >>>> versions, I'm -1 on the change as the code is now more obscure. >>> >>> Done. >>> >>> Any comment on replacing the standard hex representation (i.e. lower case >>> letters like JDK does)? >> >> >> While semantically the same, I wonder if changing the output style will >> surprise some users. I'm 50/50. >> >> >>> Or further usage of JDK functionality? >>> >> >> I think it has to be considered on a case by case basis if there are any >> side-effects like the one above. > > This code is completely new for 3.2, so *now* is the time to decide ;-) Well, we should just reuse the JRE then. The question should be flipped: why should we /not/ reuse the JRE in this case? G > > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
