commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <jcar...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [collections] Cleanup of trunk
Date Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:59:50 GMT
If none of the existing collections could use it, write a new one!  Java 6
FTW!
On Jun 25, 2012 9:10 AM, "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebourne@joda.org> wrote:

> On Java 5/6, I'm in favour of Java 6 at this point. To justify it for
> Sebb, someone needs to check to see if any collections in
> [collections] could implement the new interfaces added in Java 6 -
> NavigableSet, NavigableMap and so on.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> On 24 June 2012 12:25, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 24 June 2012 10:28, Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidhart@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I recently started to work more on collections and cleaning up the trunk
> >> to make it a candidate for a release and would like to ask a few
> questions:
> >>
> >>  - there is still lots of javadoc missing, moving the source code level
> >>   to Java 1.6 would allow the use of @Override in more places (instead
> >>   of putting a /** {inheritDoc} */ everywhere)
> >
> > AFAICT Javadoc is automatically inherited for methods that implement
> > an interface.
> > Being able to add @Override to an interface implementation does not
> > gain anything.
> >
> >>   this has been discussed for vfs a few weeks ago, and my
> >>   understanding was that this proposal was well received, so what do
> >>   you think about doing the same for collections?
> >
> > No, we should only require Java 6 if strictly necessary for some new
> > functionality it provides.
> > Javadoc is not a good enough reason.
> >
> >>  - unit tests: there are currently two unit tests for certain classes
> >>   that are almost similar, e.g. TestListOrderedMap and
> >>   TestListOrderedMap2. Does anybody know why this exists?
> >>
> >>   also I would like to go to annotation based unit tests like in the
> >>   other components and rename the tests to the common style:
> >>   ClassNameTest.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >>  - consistency with commons rules. There are several things that are
> >>   different to other components atm:
> >>
> >>   o authors contained in source files
> >
> > OK, but original authors still need to be creditted e.g. in pom.xml.
> >
> >>   o no changes.xml to track changes
> >>   o since and version tags are a bit different
> >>   o package.html should be package-info.java
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >>   and I guess other things too that I have not spotted yet.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are there any objections / suggestions to continue with the cleanup?
> >
> > I object to moving to Java 6 without a compelling reason.
> >
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message