On 26/01/2017 14:11, Michael Osipov wrote:
[...]
* StringUtils#normalizePath() can likely be replaced with Common IO's
FilenameUtils#normalize()
If we take this route, then we'll shade the commons-io class.
* StringUtils#nullTrim() can be replaced with Commons Lang's
StringUtils#trim()
* StringUtils#trimStrings() can be disposed altogether because it
iterates the list and it is iterated right after the call again. Use
StringUtils#trim() during the real iteration directly
Right.
[...]
* OSGi metadata are gone from Core, no Bundle-SymbolicName, no
Exports, everything is gone from MANIFEST.MF
This I don't understand at all. You said "gone", so you implied that
those meta informations *were* to be found somewhere before this RC? I
think we never made the effort to properly populate those informations.
* There are several spots where collections are iterated with a for
loop with a counter and #get(i) or a literal (legacy code). This
should generally be avoided. One example has been commented on GitHub.
I agree. Hopefully, this reenginering has already been done in sensitive
code sections, and remaining ones should be harmless.
* Terrific improvement on the JavaCC code generation!
* JavaCC tells me:
Note: UNICODE_INPUT option is specified. Please make sure you create
the parser/lexer using a Reader with the correct character encoding.
Warning: Choice conflict in [...] construct at line 1325, column 21.
Expansion nested within construct and expansion following
construct
have common prefixes, one of which is: <TEXT>
Consider using a lookahead of 2 or more for nested expansion.
Warning: Choice conflict in (...)* construct at line 2157, column 5.
Expansion nested within construct and expansion following
construct
have common prefixes, one of which is: <WHITESPACE>
Consider using a lookahead of 2 or more for nested expansion.
Is this something one needs to take care of?
Not at all. Those two grammar constructs partially rely on the *order of
declaration* (and the '?' cardinality suffix inside a repetition
operator is enough to trigger the warning). javacc is just anxious about
that, and suggests adding lookahead instead.
Thanks for all this remarks, Michael. They all are very constructive.
Now my question is: do you or someone else think that the OSGi missing
meta-informations are a show stopper for the 2.0? Otherwise, my plan is
to open JIRA issues for all those remarks, try to release the RC6, and
handle the issues in 2.0.1 or 2.1. The OSGi thing is the only one I'm
not really sure about, since I'm not using any tool relying on OSGi
myself (or maybe I'm the Monsieur Jourdain of the OSGi).
Claude
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@velocity.apache.org
