Hi Mark
I am almost fine with it. One thing I missed in the java7 version are the with
and query functions. I think these are important parts for future extendibility
and can simply be implemented in Java 7 manner, by adding
interface ConfigurationOperator {
Configuration operate(Configuration config);
}
interface ConfigurationQuery<T>{
<T> T query(Configuration config);
}
and then on Configuration:
Configuration with(ConfigurationOperator op);
<T> T query(ConfigurationQuery<T> query);
Anatole
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Struberg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2015 15:50
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: java 8: really?
Yes, back to the Java7 + Java8 API approach. Anyone likes to dig deeper still,
or can I commit it?
I showed that it's perfectly possible to have both. That would have the benefit
that we would get quick adoption in current containers but also support Java8
style.
LieGrue,
strub
> On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 14:03, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > can we try to avoid to cross discuss across trheads?
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
> https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2015-01-07 12:58 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>:
>>
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 12:02, Werner Keil
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > Btw. it partly relates to the Configuration.current() discussion,
> as
>>> designing a static (and default) method on an interface Configuration
> makes
>>
>>> a fully compliant "drop in" backport nearly impossible.
>>
>> Not a problem at all because a container and even a user can easily swap
> out the ServiceContext himself. So this works out of the box for most users.
> And
> if not then it's pretty easy to adopt it to unknown environments.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>
