2.2 What is the target Java platform:
This specification is targeted for Java SE 8 or
higher and Java EE 8 or higher platforms.
followed by
This JSR will be available standalone. It is also
targeted for inclusion in the Java EE 8 platform.
Additionally, Java EE 7 products will be allowed to
implement JAX-‐RS 2.1.
I think Java EE 7 won't be allowed to implement it 2.1 would be based on
Java 8, right ?
IMHO, it has to be Java 7
Sergey
On 20/08/14 17:29, Sergey Beryozkin 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Sergey Beryozkin
Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/
Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com