The maybe we should even hold back METAMODEL-6 to avoid breaking the method linking/signature of executeUpdate(...) too early. It also always helps with a few big functional improvements in a major release like a 5.0 :-)
I will start making a 'version' in JIRA for 5.0 and assign a few stories (mentioned here) to it. Feel free to add more. 2015-12-14 8:51 GMT+01:00 Alberto Rodriguez <[email protected]>: > This is a great idea, I was about to suggest the creation of a wish-list of > changes that could be implemented using Java 8. > > Alberto Rodriguez > > Vía de las dos Castillas, 33, Ática 4, 3ª Planta > 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid > Tel: +34 91 828 6473 // www.stratio.com // *@stratiobd > <https://twitter.com/StratioBD>* > > 2015-12-13 19:37 GMT+01:00 Kasper Sørensen <[email protected] > >: > > > Hi all, > > > > Maybe some of you have noticed the discussions going on regarding the PR > > for METAMODEL-8 [1] in which the use of Java 8's Optional class turned > into > > a hot topic. Currently we still support Java 7 and I think it's sane to > > keep supporting it for a while. But on the other hand there are features > of > > Java 8 that would really be cool to utilize in MetaModel. > > > > In addition to the Optional class there are all the functional interfaces > > such as Consumer and Function which we have some equivalents for in > > MetaModel (Func, Ref). And there are a number of interesting use-cases > for > > Lambdas, for instance to use Consumer<UpdateCallback> instead of > > UpdateScript. > > > > We also have some issues reported long time back which involve breaking > API > > changes. I have personally been looking for an occasion where it would be > > acceptable to make such breaking changes. > > > > So I'm trying to boil soup on that general theme and I'm thinking it > would > > be nice to start really fleshing out a list of breaking API changes that > we > > would like to make, and then plan a version 5.0 of MetaModel around that. > > We could choose to create a 5.0 branch in git and then submit PRs for API > > changes to that. Would that be a good step you think? And would it excite > > everyone to start designing MM 5 in such a way? I also want to ensure > that > > if we start on such a path that it has backing and support. > > > > Best regards, > > Kasper > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/77 > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METAMODEL-7 > > >
