commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] [LANG] Release Commons Lang 3.0 (based on RC2)
Date Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:17:09 GMT
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
> -0
> Would like to see findbugs warnings sorted.  I have not retested
> after Luc's fixes, but I in addition to the ones he mentions, I am
> not sure I understand the last one (on the site in ~bayard) and
> whether or not it is in fact a bug.  I think findbugs is complaining
> because
> *public* ExtendedMessageFormat(String pattern, Locale locale,
> Map<String, ? *extends* FormatFactory> registry) {
> *    super*(DUMMY_PATTERN);
>    setLocale(locale);
> *    this*.registry = registry;
>    applyPattern(pattern);
> }
> if you look at the source for MessageFormat, the constructor above
> calls applyPattern. The overridden version in [lang] tests if
> registry is null and delegates back to the super version if registry
> is null. This is probably OK, but findbugs is likely complaining
> because registry ends up getting read before it is initialized.

Fixes definitely welcome on this one. My take has been the gamble that
it's not a backwards compat issue to fix and therefore not a reason to
block on.

> * It would be great to fix the too long lines causing checkstyle
> problems as well or just get rid of the line length check. I will
> shorten the offending lines if you are OK with that.

I've scratched my head on these a few times. Making our lines shorter
simply to get rid of a 120 char check is bad. None of the lines are
over-long for a reason.

Minor non-release blocking issue.

> * Need to address Matt's point and make sure otherwise this is the
> horse we are going to ride from API standoint. I would say "speak
> now or forever hold you peace" and cut another RC with the changes.

The one example (WordUtils.capitalize) is extremely minor; we end up
having to maintain a 1 line method that links directly to the other
one. Annoying; but not the end of the world to have deprecated until

Matt - do you have any idea how much we need to do here?

> * One last nit - why did we decide to dump the Ant build. Version
> 2.6 seems to have a working Ant build. Why wouldn't the same build
> work for 3.0. If you are OK with this, I will try to get the Ant
> build restored.

IIRC, because no one was maintaining it. I've dumped other Ant builds
in other components too over the last 4 years (along with maven1
builds). I'm generally -1 to the "there are many ways to build it"
approach. It takes the pain of dealing with one build system and
increases it to 3x the pain. [manage build1, manage build2 and then
ensure build1 and build2 stay in sync].

What's the scope of the Ant build? Just to build and run the unit
tests, or more than that?

Can you create a Ant script that does that based on the pom?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message