Makes sense to me. +1 On Sat, Nov 29, 2014, 16:53 Andres Almiray <[email protected]> wrote:
> Whar about this: let's continue in the JDK8 route and ser how far the new > syntax and APIs can take us. It may be the case that after exploration we > discover JDK8 holds little to no advantages to Tamaya's cause OR (as I have > high hopes) JDK8 is instrumental to Tamaya's success. > > Bottom line is we wont be able to tell which path is best if we don't try > JDK8. > > Sent from my primitive Tricorder > > > On 29/11/2014, at 21:58, Anatole Tresch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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* >
