On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, nitin mahendru <nitin.mahendr...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Hi Everyone, > > Any decision on this yet ? > Not yet. Needs a bit more stewing and brewing... Gary > Thanks > > Nitin > > > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 2:51 PM nitin mahendru <nitin.mahendr...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Just another follow up. Anything new ? > > > > -Nitin > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:58 AM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Not yet ;-) > >> > >> On Aug 17, 2017 11:34, "nitin mahendru" <nitin.mahendr...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi All, > >> > > >> > Any consensus on this ? > >> > > >> > -Nitin > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:43 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Gilles < > gil...@harfang.homelinux.org > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:52:32 +0000, nitin mahendru wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:02:20 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, nitin mahendru > >> > > >>> <nitin.mahendr...@gmail.com > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>>> wrote: > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> How about having a state in the class itself which says that > it's > >> > > >>>> mutable > >> > > >>>> or not. > >> > > >>>> If we call a setter on an immutable then it throws an > exception. > >> > > >>>> By default the records are immutable and you need to make them > >> > > >>>> mutable > >> > > >>>> using a new API. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> A code example would be useful... > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Below is the pull request I added. > >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/commons-csv/pull/21 > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > As I indicated in the previous message, this is functionally > >> > > > breaking. [I'm diverting this discussion over to the "dev" > >> > > > mailing list.] > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Saying that making record mutable is "breaking" is a bit unfair when > >> we > >> > do > >> > > NOT document the mutability of the class in the first place. > >> > > > >> > > Gary > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > The following should be an interesting read: > >> > > > http://markmail.org/message/6ytvmxvy2ndsfp7h > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Regards, > >> > > > Gilles > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:17 AM Gilles < > >> gil...@harfang.homelinux.org > >> > > > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:02:20 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> > > >>> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, nitin mahendru > >> > > >>> > <nitin.mahendr...@gmail.com > >> > > >>> >> wrote: > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> >> How about having a state in the class itself which says that > >> it's > >> > > >>> >> mutable > >> > > >>> >> or not. > >> > > >>> >> If we call a setter on an immutable then it throws an > >> exception. > >> > > >>> >> By default the records are immutable and you need to make > them > >> > > >>> >> mutable > >> > > >>> >> using a new API. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> A code example would be useful... > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> >> pros: Saves memory, Keeps the immutability benefits > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> What kind of usage are you considering that a single transient > >> > > >>> record matters (as compared to the ~300 MB of the JVM > itself...)? > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> >> cons: people using "mutable" records need to be > careful.(While > >> > > >>> >> threading > >> > > >>> >> maybe) > >> > > >>> >> > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > Interesting idea! > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > But I think I like the idea of a subclass better if we are > >> going to > >> > > >>> > split > >> > > >>> > the behavior b/w mutable and immutable. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Once you have a subclass that is able to modify the state of > >> > > >>> its parent, it's a mutable object. Period. > >> > > >>> There is no such thing as a "split". > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > For my money and the KISS principle, I would just add the put > >> > method > >> > > >>> > in > >> > > >>> > CSVRecord. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Then, any use that assumes immutability will be broken. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Gilles > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > Gary > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> >> > >> > > >>> >> -Nitin > >> > > >>> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> > > >>> >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:01 AM Gilles > >> > > >>> >> <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > >> > > >>> >> wrote: > >> > > >>> >> > >> > > >>> >> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:49:04 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> > > >>> >> > > That looks odd to me. What comes up for me is the use > case > >> > where > >> > > >>> >> I > >> > > >>> >> > > want to > >> > > >>> >> > > ETL a file of 10,000,000 records and update, say, one > >> column. > >> > If > >> > > >>> >> am > >> > > >>> >> > > forced > >> > > >>> >> > > to create a brand new record for every record read, that > >> would > >> > > >>> >> be a > >> > > >>> >> > > shame. > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > Why? > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > If I had a mutable record, I could just keep on updating > it > >> > and > >> > > >>> >> using > >> > > >>> >> > > it to > >> > > >>> >> > > write each row. Read record, update it, write record. No > >> extra > >> > > >>> >> memory > >> > > >>> >> > > needed. > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > How is the size of 1 additional record going to matter > >> compared > >> > to > >> > > >>> >> the > >> > > >>> >> > size of the whole program? > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > Either we can make the current record mutable (what's the > >> > harm?) > >> > > >>> >> or > >> > > >>> >> > > we can > >> > > >>> >> > > make the parser serve out mutable records based on a > config > >> > > >>> >> setting. > >> > > >>> >> > > This > >> > > >>> >> > > could be a subclass of CSVRecord with the extra method I > >> > > >>> >> proposed. > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > The harm is that you loose all the promises of > immutability. > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > Regards, > >> > > >>> >> > Gilles > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > > >>> >> > > Thoughts? > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > > >>> >> > > Gary > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > > >>> >> > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Gilles > >> > > >>> >> > > <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > >> > > >>> >> > > wrote: > >> > > >>> >> > > > >> > > >>> >> > >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:01:53 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> > > >>> >> > >> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> How does that work when you want to change more than > one > >> > > >>> >> value? > >> > > >>> >> > >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> How about a "vararg" argument: > >> > > >>> >> > >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> /** > >> > > >>> >> > >> * @param orig Original to be copied. > >> > > >>> >> > >> * @param replace Fields to be replaced. > >> > > >>> >> > >> */ > >> > > >>> >> > >> public static CSVRecord createRecord(CSVRecord orig, > >> > > >>> >> > >> Pair<Integer, > String> > >> > ... > >> > > >>> >> > >> replace) { > >> > > >>> >> > >> // ... > >> > > >>> >> > >> } > >> > > >>> >> > >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> Gilles > >> > > >>> >> > >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> > >> > > >>> >> > >> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> Gary > >> > > >>> >> > >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> On Aug 15, 2017 00:17, "Benedikt Ritter" < > >> > brit...@apache.org> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> wrote: > >> > > >>> >> > >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> Hi, > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> I very much like that CSVRecord is unmodifiable. So > I’d > >> > > >>> >> suggest an > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> API, > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> that creates a new record instead of mutating the > >> existing > >> > > >>> >> one: > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> CSVRecord newRecord = myRecord.put(1, „value") > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> I’m not sure about „put“ as a method name since it > >> clashes > >> > > >>> >> with > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> java.util.Map#put, which is mutation based... > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> Regards, > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> Benedikt > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > Am 15.08.2017 um 02:54 schrieb Gary Gregory > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> <garydgreg...@gmail.com>: > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > Feel free to provide a PR on GitHub :-) > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > Gary > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > On Aug 14, 2017 15:29, "Gary Gregory" > >> > > >>> >> <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> wrote: > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >> I think we've kept the design as YAGNI as > possible... > >> > :-) > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >> Gary > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:25 PM, nitin mahendru < > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >> nitin.mahendr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> Yeah that also is OK. I though there is a reason > to > >> > keep > >> > > >>> >> the > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> CSVRecord > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> without setters. But maybe not! > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> Nitin > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:22 PM Gary Gregory > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> <garydgreg...@gmail.com > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> wrote: > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> Hi All: > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> Should we consider adding put(int,Object) and > >> > > >>> >> put(String, > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> Object) to > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> the > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> current CSVRecord class? > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> Gary > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:54 PM, nitin mahendru < > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> nitin.mahendr...@gmail.com> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> wrote: > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> Hi Everyone, > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> I recently pushed a change(pull request 20) to > get > >> > the > >> > > >>> >> line > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> ending > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> from > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> the > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> parser. > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> Now I want to push another change which I feel > >> will > >> > > >>> >> also be > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> useful > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> for > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> the > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> community. I want to add a CSVRecordMutable > class > >> > which > >> > > >>> >> had > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> a > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> constructor > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> which accepts a CSVRecord object. So when we > have > >> a > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> CSVRecordMutable > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> object > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> from it then we can edit individual columns > using > >> it. > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> I would be using this to write back my edited > CSV > >> > file. > >> > > >>> >> My > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> use case > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> is to > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> read a csv, mangle some columns, write back a > new > >> > csv. > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> I could have directly raised a pull request but > I > >> > just > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> wanted to > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> float > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> the > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> idea before and see the reaction. > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> Thanks > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> Nitin > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>>> > >> > > >>> >> > >> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > --------- > >> > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
