For those interested, Java 8 actually intends to allow for "optional
returns" from Lambda expressions, i.e. there may be two overloaded versions
of a method, one expecting a Lambda expression with a return and one
without.
So the previous example could actually be written like this:
Foo foo =
I had envisioned inTransactionWithResult() for that purpose. This returns a
value which can be used in the next lambda expression:
Foo foo = inTransactionWithResult( (session, tx) -> {
Foo f = new Foo();
em.persist( f );
} );
inTransaction( (session, tx) -> {
Foo
These kind of tests are actually not in isolations between lambdas. You
often want to pass an id or value between blocks to be reused. I don't
think lambdas are porous enough for that. That would be surprising.
Emmanuel
On Fri 2014-04-25 10:41, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I've played around
I love the idea, but I'm coming from a very different angle:
it's important that we regularly exercise our APIs, and verify that
they make sense in the new world.
But can we reliably run tests compiled with Java8 but still verify our
main library is going to run fine in previous JVMs?
I don't ful
On 25 Jan 2014, at 10:41, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> I've played around a bit with the idea of using Java 8 lambdas to make
> tests easier to write and read. We have many tests which open a session and
> TX, do some stuff, commit, open a new TX (and/or session), do some
> assertions and so on:
>
>
Hey,
I've played around a bit with the idea of using Java 8 lambdas to make
tests easier to write and read. We have many tests which open a session and
TX, do some stuff, commit, open a new TX (and/or session), do some
assertions and so on:
Session session = openSession();
Transaction trans
