@Gerhard fair enough. My opinion on the topic is now well known ;) This will change with EE8. It is different, SE 8 is a real major release of the platform similar to SE 4 to 5 which has impact on how you build things. CDI 2.0 will be based on Java 8 features for sure as well alss the other EE 8 JSRs ;)
Best Anatole 2014-11-29 22:44 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>: > @anatole: > with my comment i haven't favoured one. > my point was that the version of java shouldn't be the central question. > let's just start to discuss the api based on use-cases and we can do > whatever is needed to get a concise and powerful api. > > @specs. - just fyi: > e.g. cdi built on top of java 6 features, however, owb as well as weld > supported java 5. > in case of other specs. (e.g. jsf) it's similar. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-11-29 22:11 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > Let speak about the api. Well decide after when complete in terms of > > feature/design. If we can stay j7 great otherwise if we have real reasons > > it is good as well. > > Le 29 nov. 2014 22:00, "Anatole Tresch" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > Hi > > > > > > as Gerhard mentioned Java 8 guarantees not necessarily a better API, > but > > > Java 7 makes it definitively harder! And remember the original > incubation > > > proposal says we want to create a modern and functional API. Also I > would > > > like to mention (I will mention it exactly once, since it is only one > > > aspect of the work we plan to do here) that if we want to be part of > some > > > kind of future standards, regardless if for Java SE and/or EE, Java 8 > is > > a > > > precondition. Oracle will never accept an API proposal that is built on > > > Java 7. > > > > > > Adding the use case aspect does not help related to that topic, so > please > > > let that things out as of now. We have to sort out the basics first. On > > > which Java version things are build is for me an absolute crucial > > decision, > > > we cannot postpone. I did a proposal how to sort that out, still > leaving > > a > > > door open for Java 7 support: > > > > > > - * Design for the future (Java 8) and provide a (maximal) > compatible > > > backport for Java 7 once the first release is out and a majority of > > the > > > team members want to do so. * > > > > > > So I tend to do a vote on that and see what is the outcome. > > > > > > Be aware also, that if we decide for Java 7, we must have to check if > the > > > existing supporters are still are on board, since the original > incubation > > > proposal was IMO clearly targeted for Java 8 (though not explicit). > > > > > > If we have a decision here, I hope we can start to focus on the > problems > > we > > > want to solve (aka use cases and requirements). > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > -Anatole > > > > > > > > > 2014-11-29 20:00 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > [email protected] > > >: > > > > > > > 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! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > *Anatole Tresch* > > > Java Engineer & Architect, JSR Spec Lead > > > Glärnischweg 10 > > > CH - 8620 Wetzikon > > > > > > *Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1* > > > *Twitter: @atsticks* > > > *Blogs: **http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/ > > > <http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/>* > > > > > > *Google: atsticksMobile +41-76 344 62 79* > > > > > > -- *Anatole Tresch* Java Engineer & Architect, JSR Spec Lead Glärnischweg 10 CH - 8620 Wetzikon *Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1* *Twitter: @atsticks* *Blogs: **http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/ <http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/>* *Google: atsticksMobile +41-76 344 62 79*
