Ah, yes, Java 9... it just seems that we need to more clearly define what is public vs. not and an SPI package seems like nice neat way to do that. That said, it's a lot of busy work and I am not 100% it is worth it. I am waffling.
Gary On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] | [email protected] > 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 > > > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 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
