> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:11 AM > Subject: Re: [ALL] About binary compatibility > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > > > I think we should adopt Java 9’s multi-release jars [1] as standard > practice. While this won’t let us update our APIs without breaking > compatibility (which may still be necessary), it will allow us to > leverage some features in newer versions of Java without worrying > about breaking backward compatibility. > > Strong disagreement. Java 9 is not even out, and I heard noone express > any desire to *use* these beasts. In other words: We'd serve a > non-existing demand. That can't help anyone, > in particular not ourselves.
I am not sure what “beasts” you are talking about, and the tone of your comment makes me wonder if you were saying the same thing about Lamda’s and Streams before Java 8 was released. Just because Java 9 hasn’t been released doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be aware of what it will offer and how you might take advantage of those features. All the multi-release support does is let you have a version of a class targeted at Java 9 as well as a class targeted at a previous version in the same jar. The user will get the version of the class that is appropriate for their runtime. The idea behind this is that you can start to take advantage of features in newer versions of the JDK without having to force the whole library(and your users) to upgrade. This allows things like being able to leverage the java.time stuff event though you still support Java 7. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
