Are there that many areas within [lang] that would benefit from JDK1.5? One of the key purposes of [lang] is providing JDK1.5 features to earlier JDKs.
Stephen --- "Stuart, Ashwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have already had a similar discussion on > JDK5-izing > commons-collections. > > Collections are quite special considering the > introduction of generics > to Java. But what about lang? > > > > When it comes time, the existing classes/interface > should be > genericized, so that it has minimal impact on > existing code if they want > to use the new features when they switch to JDK5. > > So, when will this be? What do the folks here think > of this? > > > On a more general note, that is the consensus (or > the varied opinions) > in the commons group about the possible reaction to > Java5, considering > the significance of the changes to the language. > > Ashwin > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Carman > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > We have already had a similar discussion on > JDK5-izing > commons-collections. > There's a project at sourceforge which has already > done this, but I > don't think we settled on a good way to move forward > with that. The > code really should be hosted here at ASF IMHO, but I > don't believe we > came to a consensus as to how we were going to > migrate it in. We > discussed having different projects, different > branches, or putting the > new "genericized" > classes in different packages than their > non-genericized counterparts. > I really don't think we should introduce new > packages for the new > classes. > When it comes time, the existing classes/interface > should be > genericized, so that it has minimal impact on > existing code if they want > to use the new features when they switch to JDK5. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stuart, Ashwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi Gary and others, > > I get it. So the core lang package has to be usable > by anyone who does > not have all the nice features the later versions > offer. Makes sense. > That said, how about having extensions, at least for > J5 considering the > drasticness of its change, in which there will be an > API catering to > shortcomings one may find after using J5? Or, even > enhancements that can > be thought of to add value to J5. These extensions > will be bundled > separately (additional jars) targeting only relevant > users. > > I wonder if this has been discussed. I would like > your opinion on this. > > Ashwin > > > > > > > > > *********************************************************************************** > Information contained in this email message is > confidential and may be privileged, and is intended > only for use of the individual or entity named > above. If the reader of this message is not the > intended recipient, or the employee or agent > responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this communication is > strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please immediately notify > the [EMAIL PROTECTED] and destroy the original > message. > *********************************************************************************** > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
