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 <h...@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.w...@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 < >> h...@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 <gil...@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-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> >
