@anatole: it would be nice if you can select the simplest and most central use-case, push a test for it and start an own "[DISCUSS] ..." thread on this list.
regards, gerhard 2014-11-29 23:00 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > 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* > > >
