Hello Ismael.
Thanks for you feedback. > 1. The KIP seems to rely on the pull request for some of the details of the > proposal. Generally, the KIP should stand on its own. Looking back at what I wrote in the KIP, I agree that its style is too descriptive and relies too much on the content of the PR. I will keep it in mind, and try to do better next time. But as the voting is over I assume I better not alter it any more. > 2. Do we really need to deprecate `Function`? This will add build noise to > any library that builds with 1.1+ but also wants to support 0.11 and 1.0. No we don't. It is all a matter of how fast we can and want an api tagged with @Evolving, to evolve. As we know, that it will evolve again when KIP-118 (dropping java 7) is implemented. As the voting is over, I am rather reluctant to change it. But if more people agree with you, I still want to do it. > 3. `FunctionInterface` is a bit of a clunky name. Due to lambdas, users > don't have to type the name themselves, so maybe it's fine as it is. An > alternative would be `BaseFunction` or something like that. I share a little bit your feeling, as the best name for me would just be `Function`. But that one is taken. Again, voting is over, so if more people agree with you, I still want to reopen and change it. -- Steven
