I'm not Alex Buckley or Mark Reinhold, but from what I understand on lambda-dev which I track, method references are definitely going to be in java7.
On Feb 16, 4:54 am, Josh McDonald <[email protected]> wrote: > I think once we a get first-class method ref type in some Java-approved > fashion (hoping it comes with J7's closures), I think using Java interfaces > is the best idea, as (AFAIK) every other JVM language makes it easy to > implement and consume Java interfaces, just not so much to declare them. If > your library ships with an impl jar, an interface jar, and maybe binding > jars for Guice and Spring, you could just pick and choose which parts you > need depending on your language and container of choice? > > -Josh > > On 16 February 2010 13:04, Michael Neale <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey All. This is probably worthy of a blog post, but I thought I would > > ask here. > > > In posse podcasts, the dearth of 3rd party libs written in non java > > JVM languages is often brought up (ie jars that you use as > > dependencies of your project, or that are transitive dependencies of > > something you use). > > > I could be wrong, but I don't know of any libraries at all myself in > > common use. > > > So is this a case of time and maturity? > > > Speaking for myself, I have written utilities in scala for my own > > usage, potentially will find other usages (always tends to, over > > time). The issue myself, and others face, is how to expose/export an > > appropriate interface. Each JVM language has its own way of defining a > > "java interface" - in scala it is as simple as using traits and not > > using crazy names, and using the standard types. > > > However, this still isn't quite right, scala doc is not the same as > > javadoc, and can't be mixed directly with it (that I know). This was a > > showstopped for a colleague who wanted a nice first class java > > interfaces for people to use. My solution is to create a set of java > > interfaces, in its own module, document it - and have that as the > > public face (with implementations in appropriate languages). I guess > > that is making java interfaces as the "IDL" of the JVM (which is not > > such a bad thing - Interfaces in java are one of the nicer things that > > I think they got right). > > > So this means that to consume a JVM lib, in non java, you have a jar + > > javadocs which smell familiar, but you also have the language runtime > > lib as a dependency as well (a notable exception is duby - which > > compiles only to classes, no deps needed). > > > Thoughts ? Experiences? > > > -- > > 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]<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > .com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- > "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." > > Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald > - [email protected] > - http://twitter.com/sophistifunk > - http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/ -- 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.
