No, Java 8 is not expected to reify generics. Even if it were there are ways of doing that without breaking backward compatibility.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Fabrizio Giudici < [email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:14:15 +0200, Reinier Zwitserloot < > [email protected]> wrote: > > not work at all (assert keyword). As far as I know, Java 8 will be no >> different! >> > > Let's first reset the discussion and have a check on a piece of > information of mine that I'm probably getting wrong. I'm still assuming > Java 8 will do generics reification. Is this right? > > > * All javacs, from 1.1 to 1.7, DO NOT emit bytecode which is capable of >> running on a JVM associated with a previous version. In this sense javac8 >> > > There's something I don't understand here. I can use JDK 6 (I suppose JDK > 7, not tried yet) to generate code for Android, which is Java 5. Just a > matter of --source --target, right? > > > will not be 'backwards compatible' but then **NO JAVAC EVER** can make >> that >> claim. You can use -target X to change this, but you can't mix -source Y >> and -target X where Y exceeds X, and this has been true for as far as I >> know all javacs. >> > > Let's define my concept of backward-compatible in this scenario. I'm a > corporate, I have a large codebase in Java 6 (for instance). My upgrade to > JAva 7 will be incremental and made by a path such as: > > 1. I move to JDK 7 with --source --target 6 and check whether it runs on > JDK 6. Eventually I fix things so this happens. > 2. Then I check whether the thing runs on JDK 7. Eventually I fix things > so this happens. At this point I'm mostly happy, since the biggest trouble > with Java 6 is when it goes EOL. Now I'm on a runtime that is still getting > patches. > 3. I now move to --source --target 7. Eventually I fix things so this > happens. > 4. At this point, I can incrementally start using features of Java 7. > > "Fix things so this happens" admits that I have some work to do, if this > work is very well confined I still call it (practical) backward > compatibility of a new JDK. Perhaps I'm using the wrong term? > > > -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s. > "We make Java work. Everywhere." > http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/**blog <http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog> - > [email protected] > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscribe@** > googlegroups.com <javaposse%[email protected]>. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/javaposse?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en>. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
