I'm fine with adding those. But that might as well be seen as substantial benefit of the Java8 interface. I'm not sure if we could easily keep it compatible. The java8 interface should be binary compatible to the java7 version.
It should be possible to start with the Java7 api+impl in your application and once you upgrade to Java8 then take the java8 api version and it still should work. Of course the other way around is not supported. Remember that in that case the java8-api would need to be 'backward compatible' to the java7-api. That was also the reason why I also added the ConfigurationProvider class with it's static accessor method to the java8 module. It's just there for full compatibility. LieGrue, strub > On Wednesday, 7 January 2015, 16:07, "Tresch, Anatole" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >> >
