It relies off of Java 8 bytecode, so there are still issues relating to APIs in the backport that may trump this approach.
I don't know much about the lambda internals, but unless the backport can be compile with a Java 7 boot classpath and outputting Java 8 bytecode retrolambda won't be much of an option. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Richard Bair <[email protected]>wrote: > Interesting. If we end up using more Lambda's in FX, there might still be > an easy way to maintain the back port to 7. > > Richard > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Esko Luontola <[email protected]> > > Subject: Lambda Expressions Backported to Java 7, 6 and 5 > > Date: July 24, 2013 1:40:33 AM PDT > > To: [email protected] > > > > Hi all, > > > > Thought you might want to know about this: > > > > > http://blog.orfjackal.net/2013/07/lambda-expressions-backported-to-java-7.html > > https://github.com/orfjackal/retrolambda > > > > And thanks for developing the lambdas. :) > > > > I would just like to know that what is the probability for the > > implementation of LambdaMetafactory or InnerClassLambdaMetafactory being > > changed before the GA release of JDK 8? > > > > Currently Retrolambda relies on the fact that LambdaMetafactory > > dynamically generates exactly one class per each invocation of > > LambdaMetafactory's methods. Also it relies on the naming pattern of the > > generated lambda class and the synthetic methods in the class containing > > the lambda. If any of those implementation details change, I'll have to > > update Retrolambda. > > > > -- > > Esko Luontola > > www.orfjackal.net > > > >
