We should try to provide support for Java EE 8 streaming APIs or introduce reactive APIs, that may require CompletableFuture from Java SE 8. Also, we should try to make sure that our APIs are ready for lambdas.
Marek
On 20 Aug 2014, at 18:29, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
> I.e, which of the featured of JAX-RS 2.1 strictly require Java 8 ?
>
> Thanks, Sergey
> On 20/08/14 17:27, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> Sorry. lets not worry about 1.5. It was not about 1.5 but about the fact
>> that it will a long time for people to migrate from 7 to 8 and I only
>> referred to Java 5 as an example of how long it may take for people to
>> migrate.
>>
>> Santiago: why Java 8 ? It's too high. We won't be able to support it for
>> a couple of years probably. Can we lower it down to 1.7 ? JAX-RS 2.0 is
>> 1.6, JAX-RS 2.1, not 3.0, - 1.8. Too high.
>>
>> Thanks, Sergey
>>
>> If JSR 2.1 mandates Java 8 than I can not list myself as a supporter.
>> On 20/08/14 17:15, Markus KARG wrote:
>>>>> BTW, as you intend to target Java SE 8, it might me a good idea to add
>>>>> a mandatory item to that list: Supporting the new language features,
>>>>> in particular lambda expressions, streams API, and Consumers /
>>>>> Producers. Those are what people most commonly understand unter "8",
>>>>> so it would be a shame if we do not overhaul the API using that
>>>>> features.
>>>> Java 8 would be too early, same way as Java 7 was to early was Java 2.0.
>>>> We have users still on Java 1.5 due to the internal restrictions. Making
>>> Java 7 a base stack for 2.1 would work IMHO.
>>>
>>> But the draft says that Java 8 is the base of the JSR, so what sense
>>> does it
>>> makes to enforce _that_ but not _using_ any of the implied features? To
>>> support your issue the result would be to reduce the draft to mandate
>>> Java
>>> 5. Unless that is truly what you have in mind, it is senseless to be
>>> against
>>> usage of Java 8 _features_, as Java 8 implies a binary format which
>>> does not
>>> load on JRE 5 anyways.
>>>
>>> So what is your actual idea? Mandate Java 5 or mandate Java 8 with Java 5
>>> binary format?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Sergey
>>>> Regards
>>>> Markus
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Santiago Pericas-Geertsen
>>>> [mailto:Santiago.PericasGeertsen_at_oracle.com]
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 19. August 2014 16:30
>>>> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
>>>> Subject: [jsr339-experts] JAX-RS 2.1 JSR
>>>>
>>>> Hello Experts,
>>>>
>>>> After collecting the feedback on this alias as well as that of the
>>>> community (via the survey), we are ready to move forward with JAX-RS
>>>> version 2.1. We decided to spin off the MVC work into a separate JSR,
>>>> now called MVC 1.0. It is likely that MVC 1.0 will define integration
>>>> points with JAX-RS, but it will be up to the MVC EG group to define
>>>> those. In addition, MVC 1.0 may support other types of controllers.
>>>>
>>>> In preparation for the JSR submission, I'd like to ask if I can list
>>>> your name as a _supporter_ for JAX-RS 2.1 (Note that becoming a
>>>> supporter is different from an EG member). If you want to be listed as
>>>> a supporter, please respond to this message as soon as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to working with you again. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> -- Santiago
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>