<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/14/2007 08:22:30 PM:
> There are plenty of regular users of commons-collections who are
> also commons developers (including myself), so I'm quite sure that
> the existing non-generics library will be maintained long-term (ie
> bugfixes applied). Whether there is
Stephen Kestle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bryce L Nordgren wrote:
> > First, let me understand the proposal. Is a 1.4 compatible version of
> > commons-collections going to continue to be supported simultaneously with
> > the 1.5+ "reboot"? Your answer above indicates "no".
> >
> I ju
Bryce L Nordgren wrote:
First, let me understand the proposal. Is a 1.4 compatible version of
commons-collections going to continue to be supported simultaneously with
the 1.5+ "reboot"? Your answer above indicates "no".
I just re-read that: The current version of collections will still be
With regards to my -1: rather than rename getInstance methods, I would
prefer to remove them and solely rely upon utility methods such as
PredicateUtils#truePredicate.
I'm potentially fine with that, except I don't want it to be in
PredicateUtils - call it Predicates instead. PredicateUtils s
Bryce, I've been in a similar position for the past year or so. It's
only now that my employer is properly moving into JSE5. I believe we've
previously agreed that backwards compatibility with JSE4 is not a major
aim of genericising Commons Collections, hence why we're on an entirely
different
Stephen Kestle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/12/2007
09:15:11 PM:
> Bryce L Nordgren wrote:
> > Are you going to still produce binary releases which are compatible
with
> > 1.4, even though they won't be able to compile the new source releases?
Or
> > are you going to use some sort of code str
Apologies for the incomplete sentence...
You never pass a Java5 collection to a library written before
generics? To give an example close to home: you _never_ use the current
commons-collections, in particular the "TransformedCollection"
decorator?
I use sf.collections, and never used the Tr
Bryce L Nordgren wrote:
Stephen Kestle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/12/2007
07:05:21 PM:
I'm unsure why people who use Java 5 only should pay a runtime penalty
when it isn't needed. If this issue concerns you, use
java.utils.Collection.CheckedCollection.
Being a C fanatic, I said
Stephen Kestle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/12/2007
07:05:21 PM:
> I'm unsure why people who use Java 5 only should pay a runtime penalty
> when it isn't needed. If this issue concerns you, use
> java.utils.Collection.CheckedCollection.
Being a C fanatic, I said the same thing about array b
It may be that Java generics adds type safety for some. However, if you're
passing collections back and forth between 1.4 code and 1.5/1.6 code, you
have all the potential problems of the un-typechecked world _plus_ the
false sense of security that you're "safe". In short, your library offers
Stephen Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/12/2007 03:35:06 PM:
> That sounds like a good point to me. Have you thought about submitting
> some backwards compatibility test cases to Jira, to ensure we don't trip
> over any such problems?
I believe I wrote two Predicates (SuperclassPredicate
11 matches
Mail list logo
