imo we should focus on the api first. using java 8 is no guarantee to get a better api.
as mentioned in a previous thread, we need to re-visit the existing parts anyway. e.g. at deltaspike it was quite challenging to merge the existing approaches until we switched to an use-case based procedure. we started to write tests to reflect the different use-cases starting with the most trivial one. that increases the test-coverage and users can have a look at those tests to see the usage of the different parts. furthermore, it ensures that more advanced use-cases won't impact simpler uses-cases. in the test-suite we use packages which follow the following format: [project-package].[area].uc[number]. the use-case numbers don't reflect the priority, however, usually the lower numbers reflect the most common usages. i would prefer to try such an approach also for tamaya. it might be a bit more time-consuming, but we can do everything step-by-step. moreover, we don't start with random discussions. even if we would end up with almost no api-changes (which i don't expect), we would get a nice test-coverage at the end. regards, gerhard 2014-11-29 11:42 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > I still think api is broken (access shouldnt be static like that, maybe we > can take inspiration from jcache), default method just shows api should be > split in 2 interfaces (provider and analyzer maybe?) etc... > > If solution is commons configuration and tamaya reason is j8 then why > creating a new project? > Le 29 nov. 2014 11:32, "Anatole Tresch" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Dear all > > > > I miserably failed to send you feedback on the Java 8 topic due to the > f... > > spam checks: > > > > - in html > > - linked to Google Docs > > - as PDF > > - as link to the blog > > > > I now published a blog on it at: > > javaeeconfig.blogspot.com/2014/11/configapi-java-7-vs-java-8.html > > > > Hope you can read it ;) > > > > Cheers, > > Anatole > > > > PS: Can please anybody change this spam levels here for the dev list - I > do > > not want to happen such a mess once more! > > >
