Best to wait for the spec.
On 9/15/2016 12:34 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 09/15/2016 05:51 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 15/09/2016 07:54, Peter Levart wrote:
One thing that is not clear is whether the yyy in "provides xxx with
yyy" directive of module declaration must be a concrete class and a
On 09/15/2016 05:51 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 15/09/2016 07:54, Peter Levart wrote:
One thing that is not clear is whether the yyy in "provides xxx with
yyy" directive of module declaration must be a concrete class and a
subtype of service type when the service is obtained via a static
On 15/09/2016 07:54, Peter Levart wrote:
One thing that is not clear is whether the yyy in "provides xxx with
yyy" directive of module declaration must be a concrete class and a
subtype of service type when the service is obtained via a static
method. For example, is the following a valid
Hi,
Reading number (2) of the proposal... the static provider() method
(declared by "provider class") and returning a "provider object" sounds
confusing when coupled with number (3) which proposes a
ServiceLoader.Provider interface. Should Provider interface be renamed
to ProviderFactory?
On 13 September 2016 at 21:04, wrote:
> 2016/9/12 15:08:41 -0700, Stephen Colebourne :
>> My preference of these three options is option 2.
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear, but this isn't meant to be a "choose one"
> proposal. It's a set of check
2016/9/12 15:08:41 -0700, Stephen Colebourne :
> My preference of these three options is option 2.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but this isn't meant to be a "choose one"
proposal. It's a set of check boxes, not radio buttons. The proposal
is to implement suggestions (2) and
k Reinhold <mark.reinh...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Issue summary
> -
>
> #ServiceLoaderEnhancements --- The module system encourages the use of
> services for loose coupling, but the `ServiceLoader` class is not very
> flexible. Consider enhancing it so that (1