FYI, here is Brian's summary of the situation about Optional in Java 8.
Hopefully, this will provide some background on why things are the way they
are.
I have already seen that email but It doesn't clarify my doubts at all. I
wonder how it clarifies yours.
The problem is with the
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:58:01 PM UTC+1, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
I am sorry but your maintenance contract for this piece of code expired in
1988. Feel free to contact our sales department to establish a new
contract, although you need to be aware that our hourly rates for Pascal
I will add, without comment, the entry for back door in the Internet
Jargon File [http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/back-door.html].
[common] A hole in the security of a system deliberately left in place by
designers or maintainers. The motivation for such holes is not always
sinister; some
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Mario Fusco mario.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not asking to turn Java into Scala. What I am asking is: either
provide an acceptable Optional implementation with the features that a
functional programmer expects to find in it or simply give up with it.
That's a
I think that list has had enough of emotional responses and it's been
made clear that we'll get what we're given in Java 8 regarding
Optional. It's not an open process, just an open mailing list.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at
On Wednesday, 31 October 2012 16:48:22 UTC, rakesh mailgroups wrote:
Hi All,
I remember a few years ago when Eric Evan's book came out and everyone was
raving about it.
A little while later, I think there was a backlash since the fundamental
misunderstanding was that the ideas
Recently in the DDD community (which is mostly .net oriented) there is a
lot of discussion on the topic of Domain Event and CQRS.
http://codebetter.com/gregyoung/2010/04/11/what-is-a-domain-event/
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/CQRS.html
As for me I loved the blue book but later I found GOOS to
I found one interesting data point in the Optional-debate concerning
Optional's predecessor in Guava. It looks like Atlassian has built their
own Guava-addon/fork, adding pretty much all the things discussed in this
thread. The description https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/fugue/ reads:
Google's
Google's guava project is a solid utility library providing many useful
interfaces and utilities, and it is a very commonly added dependency for
most projects. Unfortunately, they have a strong NIH syndrome and are
somewhat half-pregnant when it comes to functional-programming. This
library
OK, I wrote Optionals for JDK8 which adds static functions map, flatMap,
and toIterable
http://pastebin.com/HZ1suSRt
(I would probably adjust the generics type boundaries if this was a serious
effort)
So that these work:
map(optObj, (o) - ...);
flatMap(optObj, (o) - ...);
for (T t :
It is unlikely that we will drop Option in favour of Optional in
Functional Java, as that would be a step backwards for the library if
Optional does not gain flatMap etc. There will almost certainly be a
compatibility layer.
As an aside, it's amazing how small an amount of code we're really
But you wouldn't lose any functionality at all, you would merely lose the
more convenient syntax
instead of class function syntax:
optObj.flatMap((a) - ...);
you would use external static function syntax:
flatMap(optObj, (a) - ...);
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:00:01 PM UTC-5, Ricky
That would be inconsistent with the other types in FJ. There's no
advantage to that over using Option other than compatibility with code
that uses Optional, for which a couple of conversions can be provided.
If they do it right then I would expect us to drop Option but FJ is
not the kind of
13 matches
Mail list logo
