On 23.06.2016 15:50, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
[...]
As for switching purely to indy, I've heard a lot of issues on this list where
people say it's slower, or at least the same.
Has that changed now?
the problem is that the work on this part of the JDK is still ongoing.
Each test has to be done
On 23.06.2016 15:57, Wilson MacGyver wrote:
I think what Jochen means is, Indy requires jdk 7. Once 9 comes out, it
will be safe to drop Jdk 6 support.
Thus no need for non Indy version
basing only on indy means no JDK 6 support anymore, that is very right.
But there are actually a couple of
I think what Jochen means is, Indy requires jdk 7. Once 9 comes out, it
will be safe to drop Jdk 6 support.
Thus no need for non Indy version
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:50 AM Winnebeck, Jason <
jason.winneb...@windstream.com> wrote:
> I am curious, what does JDK 9 change to affect indy?
>
> As fo
Ouch I will continue to embrace dynamic then :)
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM Guillaume Laforge
wrote:
> Perhaps a custom type checker extension could be fed with the jdbc
> metadata...
> Le 22 juin 2016 7:41 PM, "Shil Sinha" a écrit :
>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> You could use the map access synt
I am curious, what does JDK 9 change to affect indy?
As for switching purely to indy, I've heard a lot of issues on this list where
people say it's slower, or at least the same. Has that changed now? It's on my
long list to benchmark our application with indy groovy but as we use compile
static