Yes, back to the Java7 + Java8 API approach. Anyone likes to dig deeper still, or can I commit it?
I showed that it's perfectly possible to have both. That would have the benefit that we would get quick adoption in current containers but also support Java8 style. LieGrue, strub > On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 14:03, Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > can we try to avoid to cross discuss across trheads? > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau > http://www.tomitribe.com > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com > https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2015-01-07 12:58 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: >> >> >>> On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 12:02, Werner Keil > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Btw. it partly relates to the Configuration.current() discussion, > as >>> designing a static (and default) method on an interface Configuration > makes >> >>> a fully compliant "drop in" backport nearly impossible. >> >> Not a problem at all because a container and even a user can easily swap > out the ServiceContext himself. So this works out of the box for most users. > And > if not then it's pretty easy to adopt it to unknown environments. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >
