commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Imaging 1.0 based on RC2
Date Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:17:25 GMT
On 24 July 2012 07:31, Damjan Jovanovic <damjan.jov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 2012, at 21:19, Damjan Jovanovic <damjan@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> It's been 3 years since Imaging 0.97 was released,
>>> and many bugs have been fixed and many features added,
>>> so I would like to release a long overdue Imaging 1.0.
>>>
>>> Imaging 1.0, RC2 is available for review here:
>>>  http://people.apache.org/~damjan/imaging-1.0-RC2/
>>>
>>> Maven artifacts are here:
>>>  http://people.apache.org/~damjan/imaging-1.0-RC2/maven
>>>
>>> Details of changes since 0.97 are in the release notes:
>>>  http://people.apache.org/~damjan/imaging-1.0-RC2/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>>>  http://people.apache.org/~damjan/imaging-1.0-RC2/site/changes-report.html
>>>
>>> I have tested this with JDK 1.6 using maven2.
>>>
>>> The tag is here:
>>>  http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/imaging/tags/IMAGING_1_0_RC2/
>>>
>>> Site:
>>>  http://people.apache.org/~damjan/imaging-1.0-RC2/site/
>>>
>>> Clirr Report is irrelevant - there is no source/binary/semantic
>>> compatibility with 0.97.
>>
>> Since this is 1.0, I am more concerned with getting the API right than
>> compatibility with a sandbox version. My question therefore is: are
>> you happy with the API?
>>
>> I am traveling ATM and cannot dig into my IDE.
>>
>> I took a peek at the reports and there are a lot of issues reported by
>> FindBugs, PMD and so on. What is the plan there?
>
> The API is fine for now. It could use some improvements, but that's
> something I'd rather leave for version 2.0.

There seem to be quite a few public arrays and collections; these are
prone to accidental or malicious updates.
Ideally all mutable fields should be private, or at worst package protected.
If access is needed, provide a getter.

Only constants should be protected or public.

It won't be possible to remove protected or public field qualifiers
without breaking compatibilty, so ideally lock down all fields now.

Reducing data exposure makes testing easier, as there are fewer cases
to consider, and classes can be more easily tested in isolation.
It also helps with thread-safety.

> I've already fixed all the FindBugs problems that are worth fixing,
> the rest are non-issues. The issues PMD finds (final modifiers in
> final classes, empty catch blocks, unused parameters) are things I
> consider normal.
>
>> Gary
>>
>>>
>>> RAT Report:
>>>  http://people.apache.org/~damjan/imaging-1.0-RC2/site/rat-report.html
>>>
>>> Votes, please.  This vote will close in 72 hours, Friday 27 July 2012
>>> at 02:00 GMT.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>>> [ ] +0 OK, but...
>>> [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>>> [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>
> Damjan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
View raw message