groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Owen Rubel <oru...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: what kind of class should a open block be?
Date Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:38:35 GMT
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
orubel@gmail.com

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org> wrote:

> Am 19.06.2015 15:17, schrieb C├ędric 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/
>
>

Mime
View raw message