Yeah, breaking changes - no chance, at least not for java7. But, there are plenty of API things that would be great to have, and are forwards, backwards, migration, upwards, downwards, sideways, and any other direction - compatible.
For example, String.join. I mean, really, now. How can java make a straight-faced claim of 'batteries included' without it? Last I heard, there's going to be a project-coin-like project for API additions. Can't find the source (probably Joe Darcy's weblog at http://blogs.sun.com/darcy/ but I can't find it after a quick scan of project coin-related entries). I assume it won't be launched until at least Project Coin's submission deadline passes (April 1st), but that doesn't give much time for API additions. Then again, something as simple as String.join is coded up and explained fully in a proposal in like an hour. On Mar 4, 9:53 am, Josh Suereth <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps just making Cloneable and Serializable annotations, while > deprecating the interfaces? > > Although the interfaces will probably not be removed before 1.8 or > (dare I say it) 2.0, it would at least encourage using annotations the > way they are meant to be used, and interfaces as, well, interfaces! > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:12 AM, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:48 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote: > > >> Hey all, > > >> Project Coin is all about small language changes for Java 7, whats > >> the > >> changes of getting a project setup for "small interface/object > >> changes" (although these could be breaking..) to fix some > >> reallllllllllly annoying marker interfaces, i.e.: > > > You are unlikely to ever get a breaking change into core java. On the > > other hand, having modules in the language and JRE opens up some new > > possibilities. > > >> * Add clone() to the Cloneable interface, and make Object's > >> implementation abstract (or remove it compleately!) - make all > >> classes > >> in the JDK that implement clone(), implement Clonable (if they don't > >> already) > > >> Is this a crazy idea (quite likely its absurd, but so is Cloneable > >> NOT > >> having clone() as a method. Any other stupid things like that could > >> be cleaned up (even if they might break a few things along the way?) > > >> ...and then Buffy staked Edward. The End. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
