commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hank Grabowski <h...@applieddefense.com>
Subject Re: [Math] Java version
Date Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:24:05 GMT
Actually conflict resolution on multiple default methods is a little more
complicated (just fast forward to the 20 minute mark for the discussion on
that):

http://medianetwork.oracle.com/video/player/1113272518001


On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Hank Grabowski <hank@applieddefense.com>
wrote:

> If you are referring to default functions on interfaces, it's not going to
> be like multiple inheritance C++ style.  Their rationale is to help for
> backwards compatibility with upgraded interfaces that add methods.
> Obviously it could be used to intentionally provide default methods from
> the very beginning, but since I've never designed an interface with that
> construct in mind I'm personally going to tread lightly with that idea.
> Thankfully, as far as I know, if two interfaces have a default method with
> the same signature then the code won't compile versus just "guessing" which
> one you meant.
>
> If the real crux is lambda expressions have we thought about doing
> something with either Retrolambda (back porter) or  LambdaJ (Google's
> Apache 2.0 licensed pre-Java 8 lambda library)?
>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Evan Ward <evan.ward@nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>
>> From an API perspective we can design a functional programming API in
>> Java 7, it will just be more verbose than in Java 8. One unique feature
>> that Java 8 does bring is multiple inheritance. Now that interfaces can
>> have method implementations classes can inherit methods from multiple
>> super classes. At this point I'm not sure how we would use this feature
>> as API designers, but it is another tool in the tool box.
>>
>> I think 7 or 8 would be a good choice.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Evan
>>
>> On 01/14/2015 11:20 PM, Silviu Burcea wrote:
>> > I think Rebel Labs or Plumbr have some metrics about JDK usage.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Hank Grabowski <
>> hank@applieddefense.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Java 8 has only been out for less than a year.  There is still a
>> sizable
>> >> percentage of groups that have not converted up to Java 8 for myriad
>> >> reasons.  While I was surprised that we are requiring backwards
>> >> compatibility with the ten year old Java 5 I think jumping all the way
>> to
>> >> requiring Java 8 may be a bit too much of a stretch.  I would vote for
>> a
>> >> minimum required version of Java 7 with the ability to run in Java 8.
>> I
>> >> wish I could find metrics to quantify the penetration of each of the
>> JDKs,
>> >> but my gut says Java 7 would a reasonable cutoff.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Raising this issue once again.
>> >>>>> Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major release?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>  [ ] Java 5
>> >>>>>  [ ] Java 6
>> >>>>>  [ ] Java 7
>> >>>>>  [ ] Java 8
>> >>>>>  [ ] Java 9
>> >>>>>
>> >>> Counts up to now:
>> >>>
>> >>> Java 7      -> 2
>> >>> Java 7 or 8 -> 2
>> >>> Java 8      -> 2
>> >>>
>> >>> Any more opionions?
>> >>>
>> >>> Gilles
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message