To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-scxml-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-dbutils has an issue affecting its community integration.
This iss
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-chain2 has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issu
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-digester3 has an issue affecting its community integration.
This i
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-dbcp2 has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-dbcp has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Sadly I do not see much BCEL activity in Commons...
>
> Does ASM fully support Java 7?
>
For a while now
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/forax/archive/2011/04/17/asm-4-rc1-released
An implementation-neutral API does not sound like a such great
I'm not opposed to multiple backends, but this dictates that [weaver] must
have its own implementation-neutral API. I don't know that I'm prepared to
create it.
Matt
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I like the name weaver.
>
> Does it make sense to allow different libs to
Sadly I do not see much BCEL activity in Commons...
Does ASM fully support Java 7?
Gary
On Dec 4, 2012, at 18:01, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> I would suggest to go with ASM instead ...unless there are people that are
> eager to work on BCEL.
>
> cheers,
> Torsten
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:54
I like the name weaver.
Does it make sense to allow different libs to be plugged in? BCEL,
ASM... Or do do we have to pick one?
Gary
On Dec 4, 2012, at 17:55, Matt Benson wrote:
> Well, it looks like the most comfortable avenue for everyone is Commons
> [weaver]. IMO [weaver] would look like
I would suggest to go with ASM instead ...unless there are people that are
eager to work on BCEL.
cheers,
Torsten
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> Well, it looks like the most comfortable avenue for everyone is Commons
> [weaver]. IMO [weaver] would look like a framework
Well, it looks like the most comfortable avenue for everyone is Commons
[weaver]. IMO [weaver] would look like a framework for implementing any
kind of code weaving, so the most important decision is the look of the
API, and it would seem that eating our own dog food would be appropriate in
Common
On 4 December 2012 21:16, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 12/03/2012 11:25 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 3 December 2012 22:11, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2012 11:01 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Note that Commons IO 2.4 requires a minimum of JDK 1.6.
>>>
>>> ok, reverted to IO 2.2.
>>>
On 12/03/2012 11:25 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 3 December 2012 22:11, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> On 12/03/2012 11:01 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> Note that Commons IO 2.4 requires a minimum of JDK 1.6.
>>
>> ok, reverted to IO 2.2.
>>
>>>
>>> net.sf.retrotranslator
>>>
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 05:47:09AM -0500, Konstantin Berlin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think this is getting silly. What I am saying is not a matter of
> opinions but of textbook optimizations. This is not a matter of use
> cases, but of something that is already well established. I feel like
> this pac
Hi,
I think this is getting silly. What I am saying is not a matter of opinions but
of textbook optimizations. This is not a matter of use cases, but of something
that is already well established. I feel like this package is trying to
reinvent the wheel, in a subject that is already well known,
Hi,
I think this is getting silly. What I am saying is not a matter of opinions but
of textbook optimizations. This is not a matter of use cases, but of something
that is already well established. I feel like this package is trying to
reinvent the wheel, in a subject that is already well known,
18 matches
Mail list logo
