Hello everybody,
as I understand it lang is currently not in releasable state. Clirr
reports these errors:
[ERROR] 7012: org.apache.commons.lang3.time.DateParser: Method 'public
boolean parse(java.lang.String, java.text.ParsePosition,
java.util.Calendar)' added to Interface
[ERROR] 7012: org
On 12 June 2016 at 08:41, Pascal Schumacher wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> as I understand it lang is currently not in releasable state. Clirr reports
> these errors:
>
> [ERROR] 7012: org.apache.commons.lang3.time.DateParser: Method 'public
> boolean parse(java.lang.String, java.text.ParsePosition
Hi,
I think we should simply revert LANG-1154. It has broken several classes
and blocks a release. We can discuss how to implement the requirement
described in LANG-1154 after 3.5.
Benedikt
sebb schrieb am So., 12. Juni 2016 um 13:22 Uhr:
> On 12 June 2016 at 08:41, Pascal Schumacher
> wrote:
On Jun 12, 2016 4:25 AM, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think we should simply revert LANG-1154. It has broken several classes
> and blocks a release. We can discuss how to implement the requirement
> described in LANG-1154 after 3.5.
+1 and RERO.
Gary
>
> Benedikt
>
> sebb schrieb am
I added DateParser and DatePrinter interfaces in 3.2. These are not expected
to be implemented by end users, only by org.apache.commons.lang3.time classes.
The interfaces exist to hide the actual implementation classes. Please look at
FastDateFormat javadoc for the factory pattern that develo
On 13 June 2016 at 01:00, Charles Honton wrote:
> I added DateParser and DatePrinter interfaces in 3.2. These are not expected
> to be implemented by end users, only by org.apache.commons.lang3.time classes.
However the Javadoc does not warn people not to implement the interfaces.
In future su
DateParser and DatePrinter interfaces are not just for internal use. I will
gladly add javadoc to the effect that end users are not expected to implement
these interfaces and that methods may be added in any release.
I think you are correct about this being a source incompatibility rather than
Should these be package private then?
G
On Jun 12, 2016 5:32 PM, "Charles Honton" wrote:
> DateParser and DatePrinter interfaces are not just for internal use. I
> will gladly add javadoc to the effect that end users are not expected to
> implement these interfaces and that methods may be added
+1 better now than latter
Original message
From: Gary Gregory
Date: 06/12/2016 8:56 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [lang] Time Package: Binary Breaking Changes Between 3.4 and
Master
Should these be package private then?
G
On Jun 12, 2016 5:32
2/2016 8:56 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Commons Developers List <mailto:dev@commons.apache.org>>
> Subject: Re: [lang] Time Package: Binary Breaking Changes Between 3.4 and
> Master
>
> Should these be package private then?
>
> G
> On Jun 12, 2016 5:32 PM, "Charl
6 8:56 PM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: Commons Developers List > <mailto:dev@commons.apache.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [lang] Time Package: Binary Breaking Changes Between 3.4 and
>> Master
>>
>> Should these be package private then?
>>
>> G
>> On Jun 12,
11 matches
Mail list logo
