Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 2. Juni 2016 um 22:40 Uhr:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Benedikt Ritter <benerit...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> dbrosIus <dbros...@baybroadband.net> schrieb am Do., 2. Juni 2016 um > >> 22:32 Uhr: > >> > >> > It is still not functionally compatible. People parsing UNKNOWN > >> > annotations looking for generics (as was the right way before) will > now > >> > fail. Better rip the generic support out too. > >> > > >> > >> Okay, if this is the case I haven't understood the situation correctly. > If > >> our plan is to make a release that covers Java 8, we should go all the > >> way. > >> > > > > I think the immediate need is to avoid blowing up on Java 8. I see this > as > > a 5.x BC release needed ASAP that the Maven plugin(s) can pick up, also > > ASAP. > > > > It's a Maven plugin that blows up IIRC. > Okay, if some one goes ahead and fixes the two interface problems, I can RM. Benedikt > > Gary > > > > Gary > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > -------- Original message -------- > >> > From: Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> > >> > Date: 06/02/2016 4:22 PM (GMT-05:00) > >> > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > >> > Subject: Re: [bcel] Deprecated InstructionConstants > >> > > >> > Okay, so were are we now? > >> > > >> > - people are waiting for a new release > >> > - package coords have changed - BC is broken > >> > - sebb has put effort into making all changes compatible > >> > - two interface changes remain > >> > > >> > Is that correct? Then let's just get over with this two interfaces > mach > >> > make the API redesign afterwards. Let's create two extension > interfaces > >> > release this stuff with the old package and maven coord and we're > done. > >> > > >> > sebb <seb...@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 2. Juni 2016 um 14:19 Uhr: > >> > > >> > > On 2 June 2016 at 12:35, Jörg Schaible < > >> joerg.schai...@bpm-inspire.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > Hi, > >> > > > > >> > > > sebb wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> Hang on please. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> There were plans to produce a new incompatible release with new > >> Maven > >> > > >> coords and new package names. > >> > > >> However as I recall there was some pushback from users who wished > >> to > >> > > >> have a drop-in release. > >> > > >> That is not possible unless the release is binary compatible. > >> > > > > >> > > > The question is, why does one want to have a BC release? If Oliver > >> uses > >> > > it > >> > > > as drop-in replacement, he will not use any new stuff, i.e. he > >> might be > >> > > > interested to get simply a version working with Java 8 runtime. > >> > > > > >> > > >> So I spent quite a bit of effort reworking the changes so as to > >> > > >> facilitate a binary compatible release. > >> > > >> As far as I can recall, that effort was successful apart from > >> changes > >> > > >> to an interface (or two). > >> > > >> > >> > > >> There were some ideas as to how to resolve the interface > >> > > >> incompatibilty, but no agreement was reached. > >> > > >> I think the options were: > >> > > >> - introduce new interface(s) extending the old one(s) > >> > > >> - keep the interface(s) and handle any runtime errors > >> > > >> - use the Java 8 (?) facility which allows an interface to > contain > >> a > >> > > >> method implementation. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Note that the code does not yet support some Java 8 features. > >> > > > > >> > > > I'd really go on with bcel6 and new GAV using Java 8 as minimum > and > >> > > backport > >> > > > anything to 5.x that is required to let BCEL run on Java 8 > runtime, > >> but > >> > > > nothing else. > >> > > > > >> > > > I am normally also in the BC camp, but I realize that we stress it > >> > > sometimes > >> > > > too much and actually harm further development of a component. > After > >> > > several > >> > > > years of (public) inactivity of a component, we should really take > >> the > >> > > > advantage for a cut. > >> > > > > >> > > > The effort to release an additional 5.x after a major 6.0 is > >> negligible > >> > > > >> > > Not sure I agree the effort is negligible. > >> > > > >> > > > compared to the constant annoyance by the limits of ancient JDKs > >> > working > >> > > on > >> > > > the interesting stuff for a component. > >> > > > >> > > The JDK required to run BCEL is orthogonal to compatibility. > >> > > > >> > > Indeed there was a proposal to use Java 8 default interface methods > to > >> > > get round the issue with compatibility. > >> > > > >> > > Please let's not conflate the two issues. > >> > > > >> > > > Cheers, > >> > > > Jörg > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
