commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gary Gregory" <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com>
Subject RE: [lang] next version etc
Date Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:28:23 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 7:23 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [lang] next version etc
> 

<snip>

> ------
> >>30184: Consider for lang.text.
> >
> > There are no unit tests provided (I know, the class is pretty
simple).
> 
> Could be added, though I'm not especially fussed.

IMO, we should always add unit tests with new code. This is a case of
eating our own dog food, process-wise. If we do not lead by example, we
are not encouraging patch submitters to submit unit tests with their own
patches.

<snip>

> >>35588: Part of the lang.text call.
> >
> > I need text.VariableFormatter. If 2.2 does not come out soon, I am
going
> > to pluck it out of there for our own use ;)
> 
> Do you need all its complexity with escaping?

I want to provide our users with highly flexible configuration files
(and scripts) where Java system properties and environment variables are
available. 

It is possible that some of our users would need escaping things like
'$' and '{}'. The flexibility I would be willing to give up is what
characters to use for $ and {}, but this is the part that adds the least
amount of complexity.

If you are thinking of removing the ability to do things that correspond
to  "${aVarPiece${anotherPiece}}", then I am somewhat indifferent right
now. It just seems like a lot of work to undo the code and the unit
tests since the current implementation works and it well covered by unit
tests. Furthermore, it seems to me like once a feature like
VariableFormatter is released, implementing the above feature would be
the next step in the evolution of the class. Just my POV though...

<snip>

> >>36925: Status Gary?
> >
> > I like the feature and it is done and it tested. The only thing I
can
> > think of is trying to make the API names better (they seem fine now
to
> > me).
> 
> I would like to see method override taking in a Collection of Strings,
> otherwise its done.

I am working on this now.

<snip>

Gary


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message