Hi Jochen, For Thiago's idea you can try with https://github.com/orfjackal/retrolambda.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Jochen Kemnade <kemn...@gmail.com> wrote: > However, I know of at least one issue that I'd like to address soon and for > which at least my preferred solution will require Java 8 classes: The > datefield / timezone issue (I'm currently afk so I can't look up the ID). > I'd like to use the new date/time API for that. > If you use classes which are not available in older JDKs then retrolambda won't help. If you want to support older JDKs for this specific case you may use http://www.threeten.org/ - same classes but in a separate library, not part of JDK. > > Jochen Kemnade <kemn...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 26. Jan. 2016 18:00: > > > Yes, I meant compiling for 1.8, but Thiago's idea is interesting. Can > > default methods and lambdas actually be compiled to binary code that runs > > on Java 7 or even 6? That would indeed be a viable option, maybe even for > > 5.4. > > > > Bob Harner <bobhar...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 26. Jan. 2016 17:52: > > > >> I don't think Jochen was proposing compiling Tapestry to anything other > >> that a 1.8 level, only that if Tapestry forces users to use a 1.8 > runtime > >> then it doesn't mean they are forced to use 1.8 features. > >> > >> I'm +1 with 5.4 being maintained for jre 1.6 or 1.7 and Tapestry 5.5 > being > >> for jre 1.8 users, because 1) it's a way to keep devs interested, and 2) > >> the potential advantages of 1.8 are huge for Tapestry. One of the > biggest > >> would be the ability to change interfaces without breaking backward > >> compatibility (via default methods). > >> On Jan 26, 2016 7:32 AM, "Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo" < > >> thiag...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:29:58 -0200, Jochen Kemnade < > >> > jochen.kemn...@eddyson.de> wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi, > >> >> > >> > > >> > Hi! > >> > > >> > I expected that someone would bring up this point. I know how hard it > is > >> >> to get a large company to use up-to-date software. > >> >> However, I don't think that this should stop us from requiring Java > 8. > >> >> First of all, you can use a separate JRE/JDK to run your Tapestry > >> >> application, you just need to set your JAVA_HOME accordingly, and > >> second, > >> >> if we switch to Java 8, that doen't mean that we force anyone to use > >> Java 8 > >> >> features, it should still compile and run Java 5 code fine. > >> >> > >> > > >> > But, in order to have Tapestry using Java 8 in its sources and compile > >> to > >> > Java 6 or 7 we will be able to use most of the new syntax, but none of > >> the > >> > Java 8-introduced classes and interfaces like streams. I'm not sure > how > >> > much we can use Java 8 in Tapestry keeping it runnable under Java 7. > Of > >> > course, this is someone we should research. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > >> > Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer > >> > http://machina.com.br > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
