Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 36172 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2003 00:59:26 -0000 Received: from smtp2.primushost.com (209.58.220.66) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Aug 2003 00:59:26 -0000 Received: from shell3.shore.net [207.244.124.103] by smtp2.primushost.com with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim) id 19ouuR-0006CZ-3y; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:03:39 -0400 Received: from heuermh by shell3.shore.net with local (Exim) for commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org id 19our2-0004Sf-00; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:00:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:00:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Heuer To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] RC3 util package UUID issue In-Reply-To: <004601c365e9$f6189f60$2d3b8051@oemcomputer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Michael Heuer X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > The discussion over UUID makes me nervous. > > It has been suggested that UUID, together with the rest of the id stuff goes > into a new identifier subpackage. This makes sense. > > However, it is unreasonable of us to release a new package, and then > deprecate it in the next release (2.1). It also raises the question of > whether the other two util package classes (BitField and Validate) should be > in the main lang package instead. (What does util mean?) > > Solutions: > 1) Release as is, we can't predict the future > > 2) Don't release entire util subpackage > > 3) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package. > Create identifier subpackage for ids. Release 2.0. > > 4) Delete util subpackage. Move BitField and Validate to main lang package. > Release 2.0 without ids. Non-binding vote of course, but I think this is the best way to go. A package lang.util doesn't make all that much sense, and it'd be nice to get 2.0 out. michael > > IMHO #1 may tie us to a util subpackage, which I don't like, so #2 is > better. #3 is good, but I prefer #4 overall while ids are up in the air - it > gives us more design flexibility. > > Stephen > (who is now getting very tired of 2.0...) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henri Yandell" > > http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-lang-2.0-rc3/ > > > > Changes I know of: > > > > Some javadoc > > WordWrapUtils fixed, renamed to WordUtils and with some of StringUtils > code > > All .zip files should have text files in DOS CRLF format > > > > I'm sure there were other ones though. > > > > Let's give these a couple of days to see if anyone has any problems with > > them. > > > > Hen > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org > >