----- Original Message ----- > From: "Milles, Eric (TR Technology)" <eric.mil...@thomsonreuters.com> > To: "dev" <dev@groovy.apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:59:52 PM > Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 5 planning
> I was interested in native interface default/private/static methods > (GROOVY-8299, GROOVY-9801, GROOVY-10000) for Groovy 5. There was discussion > on > what was needed for this at one point. Does anyone remember if Java 8 was > holding us back in this area? It does not, Java the language only adds interface private methods in Java 9 but the VM already supports them since 8. As a trivia, the support in the VM was added in 8 to be able to desugar the body of a lambda as a private method (static or not) when a lambda is used inside a default method. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8299 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-9801 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-10000 regards, Rémi > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Sun <sun...@apache.org> > Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2022 1:21 PM > To: dev@groovy.apache.org > Subject: [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 5 planning > > External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. > > Hi Jochen, > > I agree with you. The manpower is always a big problem... > > As for the Groovy 5 itself, I wonder what features we should add to the > release. > I think following Java's steps is right, but Groovy should have its own > evolving plan. Also, I think polishing Groovy 4 is important too, e.g. > fixing > issues and improving performance. > > Cheers, > Daniel Sun > On 2022/06/26 21:55:33 Jochen Theodorou wrote: >> On 26.06.22 19:39, Daniel Sun wrote: >> > AFAIK, quite a lot of Groovy users are still using Java 8 because their >> > company >> > have no plan to upgrade systems to run on Java 9+. It is especially common >> > for >> > bank systems I have been working on for years, so it's better to continue >> > supporting Java 8 in Groovy 5 releases. >> >> When is it likely for them to change? If we go by the Oracle extended >> support it would mean to have Java8 in till 2030. >> >> if we had the manpower I would suggest making a java8 version of >> Groovy 5. But I think that is not realistic. It will be difficult to >> support deprecated/removed API. I mean it is a bit more than in the >> past where it was about backporting features to older Java versions or >> enabling language only features on older Java versions. The >> alternative would then be to not to support that feature anymore... >> like for example the SecurityManager. But would such a Groovy-Version >> still be useful in its current usage? >> >> >> bye Jochen
