Right it's just extended Java languages that break. So I guess it's not deprecation so to speak but building in backwards compatibility but thats not really their problem though. Still... since it would break alot of the Java ecosphere, one would hope they wouldn't roll it out IMMEDIATELY. Mark it for inclusion and give people time to fix.
Owen Rubel 415-971-0976 oru...@gmail.com On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org> wrote: > Am 19.06.2015 15:17, schrieb Cédric Champeau: > >> My point is really that if JDK 9 changes what #getSimpleName returns for >> our closures, that's a breaking change that is not under our control. >> Changing the behavior of Groovy, whatever it is, means that older >> classes will not be compatible with JDK 9, at least for the code in the >> wild which relies on <generated closure>#getSimpleName. >> > > I see it much more relaxed since it is only recently, that getSimpleName > even works and not fails with an exception. For Java classes there is no > change. So it does not break anything there. > > do we even want people depend on that? In the end I would like to be able > to have some open blocks not as classes at all. And not everything that is > a subclass of Closure is a open block either.... Just think of curried > closures and method closures > > bye blackdrag > > -- > Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou > blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ > >
