Yeah, agreed on the Java 9 bit. If it's impossible to make 2.x compatible with Java 9 without making backwards incompatible changes, that might be the push needed to start planning for 3.0.
On 15 September 2016 at 13:05, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > I am nowhere near wanting to do 3.0. But we may want to do it for Java 9 > depending on how disruptive that is. That is one of the reasons I would > like to get moving on Java 9 asap. I have a feeling we may want to > continue the 2.x releases while 3.x is going just for that reason. > > Ralph > > On Sep 15, 2016, at 9:46 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Should we start thinking about 3.0 where the main driver is to formalize a > Core SPI package? > > Doing this for 2.8 and break BC in Core would be too disruptive. > > Doing this for 2.8 and have a Core class implement a SPI interface where > the SPI interface inherits the old interface would be weird. > > Or, should we just keep on going as we have and keep Core BC a moving > target? > > We could wait to do more 2.x releases and accumulate more deprecated code > (Builders vs factory methods for example). > > Thoughts? > > Gary > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
