Re: Roadmap for 3.0

2016-09-17 Thread Ralph Goers 
If we have to modify the API to capture the stack information in AbstractLogger 
I doubt that the multi-version support will help much.

Ralph

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> As mentioned on the Ant dev list (plus I think Ralph mentioned this once 
> before), in Java 9, we can use multi-release JARs where the Java 9 specific 
> code overlays the other code. So for example, supporting the stack walker API 
> could be done by having different versions of specific classes that use the 
> native API versus the reflective one in ReflectionUtil. Thanks to this 
> multi-release support, I doubt we'll have to break API compatibility to 
> support Java 9.
> 
> On 16 September 2016 at 11:35, Remko Popma  > wrote:
> The new stop(long,TimeUnit) method on the LifeCycle interface (super 
> interface for Appender, Configuration, Filter and a few more) concerns me. We 
> should introduce a LifeCycle2 extends LifeCycle interface for that method. 
> 
> There may be a few more items. Full list is at 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1576 
> . Not all of these are 
> necessarily problematic. 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 2016/09/17, at 0:55, Ralph Goers  > wrote:
> 
>> That is a very good point!
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Greg Thomas > > wrote:
>> 
>>> > Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
>>> 
>>> This. IMHO it will become much harder to persuade people to make a jump to 
>>> 2.x if there a 3.x in the pipeline that will break BC - they'll just way 
>>> for 3.x
>>> 
>>> Greg
>>> 
>>> On 16 September 2016 at 15:45, Mikael Ståldal >> > wrote:
>>> I don't think we should start working on 3.0 any time soon, unless we have 
>>> to in order to support Java 9.
>>> 
>>> And I think we should make a 2.7 release really soon, and then more 2.x 
>>> releases after that.
>>> 
>>> Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory >> > wrote:
>>> 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 >> > 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 >>> > 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 
 
 JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
 Spring Batch in Action 
 Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com  
 Home: http://garygregory.com/ 
 Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com  | 
>>> ggreg...@apache.org  
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition 
>>> 
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
>>> Spring Batch in Action 
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com  
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ 
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Mikael Ståldal
>>> Senior software developer 
>>> 
>>> Magine TV
>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com 
>>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Swe

Re: Roadmap for 3.0

2016-09-17 Thread Matt Sicker 
As mentioned on the Ant dev list (plus I think Ralph mentioned this once
before), in Java 9, we can use multi-release JARs where the Java 9 specific
code overlays the other code. So for example, supporting the stack walker
API could be done by having different versions of specific classes that use
the native API versus the reflective one in ReflectionUtil. Thanks to this
multi-release support, I doubt we'll have to break API compatibility to
support Java 9.

On 16 September 2016 at 11:35, Remko Popma  wrote:

> The new stop(long,TimeUnit) method on the LifeCycle interface (super
> interface for Appender, Configuration, Filter and a few more) concerns me.
> We should introduce a LifeCycle2 extends LifeCycle interface for that
> method.
>
> There may be a few more items. Full list is at https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/LOG4J2-1576. Not all of these are necessarily problematic.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 2016/09/17, at 0:55, Ralph Goers  wrote:
>
> That is a very good point!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Greg Thomas  wrote:
>
> > Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
>
> This. IMHO it will become much harder to persuade people to make a jump to
> 2.x if there a 3.x in the pipeline that will break BC - they'll just way
> for 3.x
>
> Greg
>
> On 16 September 2016 at 15:45, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think we should start working on 3.0 any time soon, unless we
>> have to in order to support Java 9.
>>
>> And I think we should make a 2.7 release really soon, and then more 2.x
>> releases after that.
>>
>> Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <
>>> 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 
 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
 
 JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
 Spring Batch in Action 
 Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
 Home: http://garygregory.com/
 Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory



>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> 
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
>>> Spring Batch in Action 
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [image: MagineTV]
>>
>> *Mikael Ståldal*
>> Senior software developer
>>
>> *Magine TV*
>> mikael.stal...@magine.com
>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com
>>
>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this
>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may
>> not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
>> email.
>>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker

Re: Roadmap for 3.0

2016-09-16 Thread Remko Popma 
The new stop(long,TimeUnit) method on the LifeCycle interface (super interface 
for Appender, Configuration, Filter and a few more) concerns me. We should 
introduce a LifeCycle2 extends LifeCycle interface for that method. 

There may be a few more items. Full list is at 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1576. Not all of these are 
necessarily problematic. 


Sent from my iPhone

> On 2016/09/17, at 0:55, Ralph Goers  wrote:
> 
> That is a very good point!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Greg Thomas  wrote:
>> 
>> > Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
>> 
>> This. IMHO it will become much harder to persuade people to make a jump to 
>> 2.x if there a 3.x in the pipeline that will break BC - they'll just way for 
>> 3.x
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>>> On 16 September 2016 at 15:45, Mikael Ståldal  
>>> wrote:
>>> I don't think we should start working on 3.0 any time soon, unless we have 
>>> to in order to support Java 9.
>>> 
>>> And I think we should make a 2.7 release really soon, and then more 2.x 
>>> releases after that.
>>> 
>>> Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
>>> 
 On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory  
 wrote:
 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 
>  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  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
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
 
 
 
 -- 
 E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org 
 Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
 JUnit in Action, Second Edition
 Spring Batch in Action
 Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
 Home: http://garygregory.com/
 Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Mikael Ståldal
>>> Senior software developer 
>>> 
>>> Magine TV
>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com
>>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com 
>>> 
>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this 
>>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not 
>>> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, 
>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply 
>>> email.   
>>

Re: Roadmap for 3.0

2016-09-16 Thread Ralph Goers 
That is a very good point!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Greg Thomas  wrote:
> 
> > Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
> 
> This. IMHO it will become much harder to persuade people to make a jump to 
> 2.x if there a 3.x in the pipeline that will break BC - they'll just way for 
> 3.x
> 
> Greg
> 
>> On 16 September 2016 at 15:45, Mikael Ståldal  
>> wrote:
>> I don't think we should start working on 3.0 any time soon, unless we have 
>> to in order to support Java 9.
>> 
>> And I think we should make a 2.7 release really soon, and then more 2.x 
>> releases after that.
>> 
>> Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory  
>>> wrote:
>>> 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  
 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  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
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org 
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>>  
>> 
>> Mikael Ståldal
>> Senior software developer 
>> 
>> Magine TV
>> mikael.stal...@magine.com
>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com 
>> 
>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
>> If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not 
>> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, 
>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. 
>>   
>

Re: Roadmap for 3.0

2016-09-16 Thread Ralph Goers 
I am on the road right now but should have time on Monday to do the 2.7 release.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 16, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Mikael Ståldal  wrote:
> 
> I don't think we should start working on 3.0 any time soon, unless we have to 
> in order to support Java 9.
> 
> And I think we should make a 2.7 release really soon, and then more 2.x 
> releases after that.
> 
> Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory  wrote:
>> 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  
>>> 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  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
 JUnit in Action, Second Edition
 Spring Batch in Action
 Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
 Home: http://garygregory.com/
 Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org 
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  
> 
> Mikael Ståldal
> Senior software developer 
> 
> Magine TV
> mikael.stal...@magine.com
> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com 
> 
> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
> If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not 
> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, 
> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  
>

Re: Roadmap for 3.0

2016-09-16 Thread Greg Thomas 
> Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.

This. IMHO it will become much harder to persuade people to make a jump to
2.x if there a 3.x in the pipeline that will break BC - they'll just way
for 3.x

Greg

On 16 September 2016 at 15:45, Mikael Ståldal 
wrote:

> I don't think we should start working on 3.0 any time soon, unless we have
> to in order to support Java 9.
>
> And I think we should make a 2.7 release really soon, and then more 2.x
> releases after that.
>
> Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 > > 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 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
>>> Spring Batch in Action 
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> 
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
>> Spring Batch in Action 
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: MagineTV]
>
> *Mikael Ståldal*
> Senior software developer
>
> *Magine TV*
> mikael.stal...@magine.com
> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com
>
> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this
> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not
> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
> email.
>

Re: Roadmap for 3.0

2016-09-16 Thread Mikael Ståldal 
I don't think we should start working on 3.0 any time soon, unless we have
to in order to support Java 9.

And I think we should make a 2.7 release really soon, and then more 2.x
releases after that.

Remember that many users haven't migrated from 1.2 yet.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Gary Gregory 
wrote:

> 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 
> 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  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
>> 
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
>> Spring Batch in Action 
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> 
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
> Spring Batch in Action 
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>



-- 
[image: MagineTV]

*Mikael Ståldal*
Senior software developer

*Magine TV*
mikael.stal...@magine.com
Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com

Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this
message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
(or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not
copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
email.

Re: Roadmap for 3.0

2016-09-15 Thread Gary Gregory 
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 
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  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
> 
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
> Spring Batch in Action 
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition

JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
Spring Batch in Action 
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Re: Roadmap for 3.0

2016-09-15 Thread Matt Sicker 
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 
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  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
> 
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
> Spring Batch in Action 
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker

Re: Roadmap for 3.0

2016-09-15 Thread Ralph Goers 
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  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 
> 
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
> Spring Batch in Action 
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com  
> Home: http://garygregory.com/ 
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory