Hello Rob, I have submitted pull req. let me know if below action plan looks good.
* RandomStringGenerator in commons-text * new RandomStringUtils in commons-text with different package using RandomStringGenerator * Mark RandomStringUtils in commons-lang as deprecated * release commons-text 1.2 * release commons-lang 3.7 (doesn't matter ATM) * later remove RSU from commons-lang from Commons lang 4.0 Regards, Amey On Wed, Sep 6, 2017, 4:43 PM Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:05 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 06:55:49 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote: > >>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:34 AM, Amey Jadiye <ameyjad...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Rob, > >>> > >>> Looking at frequency I think more number of requests coming > >>> for RandomStringUtils for its simplicity. > >>> > >>> RandomStringGenerator is strong , flexible but one can't use it > quickly. > >>> Also I think this tool should belong in Commons text's arsenal. I'm not > >>> only moving RandomStringUtils to text but changing its core logic with > >>> using > >>> RandomStringGenerator which seems fair to me. So finally we should > release > >>> text-1.2 rather doing rollback of deprecation and release lang 3.6.1, > WDYT > >>> ? > >>> > >> > >> I definitely lean this direction, but if I recall correctly we drew > >> “line between [lang] and [text]” to be: a piece of functionality > >> should go in [lang] if the arbitrary java developer would probably > >> want it, whereas text is geared towards folks actually doing text > >> manipulation [1]. > >> > >> Personally I’m a +0 to +1 on doing this, but I wanted to gauge other > >> folks’ thoughts here because I feel like we’re in that grey area here. > >> That said, I’m perfectly willing to roll a 1.2 [text] release. > > > > "Grey area" should favour small components. > > Fair point. I take that to mean that you think that it should either go > into text to make lang smaller or its own component. > > I suppose because the generator lives in [text] that makes a good argument > for [text]. > > More thoughts out there? > > -Rob > > > > > Gilles > > > >> > >> Cheers, > >> -Rob > >> > >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/a2urysnxvxihfoto > >> > >>> Regards, > >>> Amey > >>> > >>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017, 12:00 AM Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Amey Jadiye <ameyjad...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello Benedikt, > >>>>> > >>>>> How about we keep that deprecated in lang and release Text-1.2 ? > >>>> [snip] > >>>> > >>>> I’m on board with this if folks are complaining and the original > intent > >>>> was to deprecate things in [lang]. Why not roll forward as opposed to > >>>> backwards? > >>>> > >>>> But, that opens the question: Is RandomStringUtils something that most > >>>> folks would want (i.e. should it be in [lang] or [text])? I think that > >>>> question is more the heart of the problem here. Either direction seems > >>>> reasonable to me. > >>>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> -Rob > >>>> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
