Frederic Simon wrote: > About "considering we still have to use Vector from time to time": I > asked Mark if he will put them in a "dirty old Java" module that can > be excluded in a profile. Basically, have clean new Java list of > modules as a base, and then add "dirty old Java" if you need on top. > His totally wrongly paraphrased answer: > - We don't want to cover a profile with a mud pile. > - If you don't want Vector and Hashtable don't use them. > > Kind of disappointing :( > I want strong deprecation by moving classes to "muddy" modules. I'd actually like something stronger than deprecated, e.g. "obsolete", that does not even appear in the default view of Javadoc. I suppose one could argue that one could just do this with deprecated stuff, but it seems like there's an initial "we just deprecated this, please stop using it" phase and then a later "this is ancient cruft, which should be ignored unless you run into code using it" phase.
-- Jess Holle > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Casper Bang <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > I agree, but that's obviously not the way it's ever done in Java, > considering we still have to use Vector from time to time (i.e. when > doing data models for Swing stuff). Indeed, it will be interesting to > see JSR-310 arrive and how JavaDoc and code completion deals with > transitive deprecations such as the one from <Date>.getMonth() to > <Calendar>.get(Calendar.MONTH) to <DateTime>.getMonth(). > > /Casper > > On Dec 12, 12:06 pm, BoD <[email protected]> wrote: > > How about saying f*ck to backwards compatibility? New projects > use the > > new (new) reified collections, and old code stays with the current > > erasure system. And old and new code don't talk to each other. I > could > > live with that! > > > > BoD > > > > Frederic Simon wrote: > > > What Alex Buckley said on Java7 BOF: > > > There is an experimental project doing reification and the mess of > > > mixed types: Type with no generics, Type with erased generics, and > > > Type with reified generics... Generate a Big pile of typing mud :) > > > > > What I say: > > > I don't know what is needed for the JVM to manage reified type > (may be > > > nothing?), and that's needed for sure. > > > We need to have a good reified language that has clean API (mainly > > > collections) with enforced generics, which is not Java. And > then the > > > integration type mud is manegeable (still hard but doable). > > > In Java itself it's going to be a nightmare! > > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Mark Derricutt > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > Was anything said a Devoxx over the reification of generics in > > > Java 7 at all? I do so hope that makes it in... > > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Alan Kent > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > I think having generics is a big step forward over not > having > > > generics - I use them a lot too. Just avoiding casts for > > > every ArrayList get call is a big win. > > > > > -- > > > "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct > optimized > > > code." -- Bill Harlan > > > > > -- > > >http://www.jfrog.org/ > > >http://freddy33.blogspot.com/ > > >http://nothingisinfinite.blogspot.com/ > > > > > -- > http://www.jfrog.org/ > http://freddy33.blogspot.com/ > http://nothingisinfinite.blogspot.com/ > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
