[ALL][DRAFT] Apache Commons Board Report for June 2019

## Description: - Apache Commons is an Apache project focused on all aspects of reusable Java components. ## Issues: - There are no issues requiring board attention at this time. ## Activity: - Activity is good with the release of 8 components. ## Health report: - While we previously repo

Re: [ALL][DRAFT] Apache Commons Board Report for June 2019

Should we mention the issues with SCXML2? On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:25 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > ## Description: > - Apache Commons is an Apache project focused on all aspects of reusable >Java components. > > ## Issues: > - There are no issues requiring board attention at this time. > > ##

Re: [lang] ArrayUtils.addFirst(T[], T)?

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 22:11, Mark Dacek wrote: > > I’d support adding both. +1 How about overloading as follows: ArrayUtils.add(T[], T, index) It seems inconsistent to have add() and addFirst(); that suggests there should be an addLast() > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:09 PM James Carman > wrot

Re: [ALL][DRAFT] Apache Commons Board Report for June 2019

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:30 AM James Carman wrote: > Should we mention the issues with SCXML2? > Hi James, Would you care to be more specific? What text would you include? Gary > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:25 AM Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > ## Description: > > - Apache Commons is an Apache

Re: [lang] ArrayUtils.addFirst(T[], T)?

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:32 AM sebb wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 22:11, Mark Dacek wrote: > > > > I’d support adding both. > > +1 > > How about overloading as follows: > > ArrayUtils.add(T[], T, index) > > It seems inconsistent to have add() and addFirst(); that suggests > there should be an

Re: [numbers] Code blocks in test methods

Hi. Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 01:34, Heinrich Bohne a écrit : > > > (2) Why not refactor and pull-out methods? This then forces you to _name_ > > the methods, instead of the above (anonymous blocks vs. commented > blocks.) > > I did not pull out the code sections into separate methods because I ha

Re: [lang] ArrayUtils.addFirst(T[], T)?

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:32 AM sebb wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 22:11, Mark Dacek wrote: > > > > I’d support adding both. > > +1 > > How about overloading as follows: > > ArrayUtils.add(T[], T, index) > Ah, I see we already deprecated an "add at index" method in favor of "insert at index":

Re: [ALL][DRAFT] Apache Commons Board Report for June 2019

SCXML seems to have stalled quite a bit. I’m not trying to throw shade or anything. People get busy and just don’t have time for open source work. There have been quite a few folks inquiring about it as of lately, but not a ton of traction. My colleagues at work are interested in using it, so I’

Re: [lang] ArrayUtils.addFirst(T[], T)?

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 13:43, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:32 AM sebb wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 22:11, Mark Dacek wrote: > > > > > > I’d support adding both. > > > > +1 > > > > How about overloading as follows: > > > > ArrayUtils.add(T[], T, index) > > > > Ah, I se

Re: [lang] ArrayUtils.addFirst(T[], T)?

addFirst is commonly used with LinkedLists. I wouldn't think it to be unintuitive. On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:56 AM sebb wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 13:43, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:32 AM sebb wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 22:11, Mark Dacek wrote: > >

Re: [ALL][DRAFT] Apache Commons Board Report for June 2019

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:51 AM James Carman wrote: > SCXML seems to have stalled quite a bit. I’m not trying to throw shade or > anything. People get busy and just don’t have time for open source work. > There have been quite a few folks inquiring about it as of lately, but not > a ton of trac

Re: [lang] ArrayUtils.addFirst(T[], T)?

I like addFirst() and addLast() because these are the same kind of names as the existing java.util.List.add(int, E) which should be familiar to people. I feel that interpreting addFirst() as "add after first" breaks the principle of least surprise. Gary On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:03 AM Mark Dacek

Re: [lang] ArrayUtils.addFirst(T[], T)?

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 14:15, Gary Gregory wrote: > > I like addFirst() and addLast() because these are the same kind of names as > the existing java.util.List.add(int, E) which should be familiar to people. > > I feel that interpreting addFirst() as "add after first" breaks the > principle of lea

[lang][rng] org.apache.commons.lang3.ArrayUtils.shuffle()

Now that RNG is up and going, it seems odd to still have: org.apache.commons.lang3.ArrayUtils.shuffle(double[], Random) Should we deprecate these APIs in favor of Commons RNG and if so which RNG APIs? Gary

Re: [lang][rng] org.apache.commons.lang3.ArrayUtils.shuffle()

On 13/06/2019 15:59, Gary Gregory wrote: Now that RNG is up and going, it seems odd to still have: org.apache.commons.lang3.ArrayUtils.shuffle(double[], Random) Should we deprecate these APIs in favor of Commons RNG and if so which RNG APIs? Gary Shuffling is in the commons-rng-sampling com

[GSoC][Commons][Statistics][descriptive] Working Repository & JIRA details

Hi All, As, Gilles said on Slack to post information regarding working repositories on ML. Following are my details for Commons-Statistics-Descriptive project: *github:** https://github.com/virendrasinghrp/commons-statistics/

Re: [lang][rng] org.apache.commons.lang3.ArrayUtils.shuffle()

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 16:35, Alex Herbert wrote: > > > On 13/06/2019 15:59, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Now that RNG is up and going, it seems odd to still have: > > > > org.apache.commons.lang3.ArrayUtils.shuffle(double[], Random) > > > > Should we deprecate these APIs in favor of Commons RNG and if

Re: [lang][rng] org.apache.commons.lang3.ArrayUtils.shuffle()

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:36 AM sebb wrote: > > > Rather than shuffle etc in place, how about various > iterators/selectors to return entries in randomised order? > [Or does that already exist?] > I am pretty sure random draws, and shuffling, are implemented with different algorithms. Though sam

Re: [lang][rng] org.apache.commons.lang3.ArrayUtils.shuffle()

On 13/06/2019 17:56, Eric Barnhill wrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:36 AM sebb wrote: Rather than shuffle etc in place, how about various iterators/selectors to return entries in randomised order? [Or does that already exist?] I am pretty sure random draws, and shuffling, are implemented

Re: [lang][rng] org.apache.commons.lang3.ArrayUtils.shuffle()

An iterator that dynamically shuffles as you go along. That's really nice, I had never even thought of that. Thanks. On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:11 AM Alex Herbert wrote: > > On 13/06/2019 17:56, Eric Barnhill wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:36 AM sebb wrote: > > > >> > >> Rather than shuff

[statistics] Upgrade to JUnit 5

[numbers] is currently upgrading to JUnit 5. This has progressed quite efficiently with a few branch merge issues. I suggest an upgrade of [statistics] before it expands in scope. It has no @RunWith(value = Parameterized.class) requirements and so should be a straight forward conversion. Ale

Re: [ALL][DRAFT] Apache Commons Board Report for June 2019

Fair enough. And very good point. It only came to mind for me, because of the work stuff. Thanks On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:09 AM Gary Gregory wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:51 AM James Carman > wrote: > > > SCXML seems to have stalled quite a bit. I’m not trying to throw shade > or > >

Re: [numbers] Code blocks in test methods

I agree this increases readability and is nice.+1 The only thing that gives me the creeps is the force push in the PR. But that is off topic, so another email for that. On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:42 AM Gilles Sadowski wrote: > Hi. > > Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 01:34, Heinrich Bohne a > écrit : > >

[git] please avoid force pushes

Apologies if everyone knows this but... There has been some force pushing in the git repos lately. Unfortunately there are a lot of Stack Overflow answers that will tell the user to solve a complex commit situation by force pushing. These answers are just *wrong*. By the nature of our code it is b

Re: [lang] Giant StringUtils vs. NullSafeStrings.

As a fact that class jdk.internal.joptsimple.internal.Strings does exist, I don't think we shall add a class named Strings. That will be misleading sometimes. Matt Sicker 于2019年6月5日周三 上午12:32写道： > > The JDK is the only source allowed to modify java.lang.String, so > they'd likely add static metho

Re: [git] please avoid force pushes

Am 13.06.2019 um 19:29 schrieb Eric Barnhill: Apologies if everyone knows this but... There has been some force pushing in the git repos lately. Unfortunately there are a lot of Stack Overflow answers that will tell the user to solve a complex commit situation by force pushing. These answers are

[csv] CSVParser is no longer Serializable after v1.7

I have been fixing some minor issues in [csv] found during release of 1.7. The fingbugs report for the release had 1 issue (see site [1]). When fixing this issue I found findbugs reports that CSVRecord has a field that is not Serializable. This issue is not in the project report on the site. If