On 30/11/2012 02:03, David Holmes wrote:
On 30/11/2012 12:44 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 11/29/2012 05:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
...
I don't agree that we need to describe what the default implementation
does, for two reasons:
1. Normal methods don't usually specify how they are
On 30/11/2012 7:58 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 30/11/2012 02:03, David Holmes wrote:
On 30/11/2012 12:44 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 11/29/2012 05:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
...
I don't agree that we need to describe what the default implementation
does, for two reasons:
1. Normal methods
On 11/30/2012 01:50 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote:
On Nov 30, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 30/11/2012 02:03, David Holmes wrote:
On 30/11/2012 12:44 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 11/29/2012 05:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
...
I don't agree that we need to describe what the
On Nov 30, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
On 11/30/2012 01:50 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote:
On Nov 30, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 30/11/2012 02:03, David Holmes wrote:
On 30/11/2012 12:44 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 11/29/2012 05:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
...
The problem for an API such as JDBC is that the implementation is going to be
specific to the driver and backend so providing a default implementation just
won't work. This allows existing drivers to compile as they finish their
implementation and complete their migration to the new version of
What is the benefit of throwing an IllegalStateException in a default
method over not providing any default method so that the compiler and
runtime make sure concrete subtypes provide an implementation?
On Nov 30, 2012 9:54 AM, Lance Andersen - Oracle
lance.ander...@oracle.com wrote:
On Nov
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM, David Holmes david.hol...@oracle.comwrote:
Mike,
On 28/11/2012 3:32 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Nov 27 2012, at 03:56 , Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 27 November 2012 02:12, Mike Duigoumike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
In the original patch which added the
On 11/29/2012 05:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
...
I don't agree that we need to describe what the default implementation
does, for two reasons:
1. Normal methods don't usually specify how they are implemented - it is
an implementation detail. The default simply indicates that this
method does
On 30/11/2012 12:44 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 11/29/2012 05:50 AM, David Holmes wrote:
...
I don't agree that we need to describe what the default implementation
does, for two reasons:
1. Normal methods don't usually specify how they are implemented - it is
an implementation detail. The
Mike,
On 28/11/2012 3:32 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Nov 27 2012, at 03:56 , Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 27 November 2012 02:12, Mike Duigoumike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
In the original patch which added the basic lambda functional interfaces,
CR#8001634 [1], none of the interfaces extended
On 27 November 2012 02:12, Mike Duigou mike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
In the original patch which added the basic lambda functional interfaces,
CR#8001634 [1], none of the interfaces extended other interfaces. The reason
was primarily that the javac compiler did not, at the time that 8001634
On 11/27/2012 03:12 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
In the original patch which added the basic lambda functional interfaces,
CR#8001634 [1], none of the interfaces extended other interfaces. The reason
was primarily that the javac compiler did not, at the time that 8001634 was
proposed, support
On Nov 27 2012, at 03:56 , Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 27 November 2012 02:12, Mike Duigou mike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
In the original patch which added the basic lambda functional interfaces,
CR#8001634 [1], none of the interfaces extended other interfaces. The reason
was primarily
On 11/27/2012 05:56 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
There is also no Javadoc on the default method override. In this case,
passing a null to either parameter will result in an NPE. This should
be documented.
More generally, you/Oracle should define a standard form of words for
describing what a
On 27 November 2012 17:32, Mike Duigou mike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
It is vitally important to get this kind of formatting/style correct.
Developers the world over will be copying what the style is in these
classes.
I totally agree that we should be consistent but I don't believe that
Hello all;
In the original patch which added the basic lambda functional interfaces,
CR#8001634 [1], none of the interfaces extended other interfaces. The reason
was primarily that the javac compiler did not, at the time that 8001634 was
proposed, support extension methods. The compiler now
16 matches
Mail list logo
