commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Tompkins <>
Subject Re: [lang]
Date Tue, 02 May 2017 00:55:00 GMT

> On May 1, 2017, at 8:25 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <> wrote:
> Adding a class with a plan to @deprecate it, something doesn't sound right.
> :)
> We should not be putting much effort (and future maintainability) into
> adding functionality in Lang that jdk8 already (easily) can do. The point
> of Lang is to complement JDK's Lang classes and friends, not to backport
> what the current JDK has already added.
> (Obviously existing Lang functionality is or will be superseded by new JDK
> additions, that just shows that the philosophy of Lang is right.)
> If you are stuck in jdk7 you are often also stuck with older Commons Lang.
> (Oversimplification, yes)
> We have java7 as target (I'm positive to bump it to 8) - but primarily for
> backwards compatibility as Lang is ubiquitous and it makes sense to stay
> one behind. But we don't need to add *new* backwards compatibility :)

Curious. This sounds like an argument for major versioning Lang in step with java, which seems

> We could make excemptions and do backports, but then I think that should be
> for more core JDK8 improvements like Optional.
> That said, your implementation is straightforward​, useful, and unlikely to
> cause trouble; I would not veto your commit if it goes forward ;)
> On 1 May 2017 9:40 pm, "Gary Gregory" <> wrote:
> In my mind, we target a given platform, in this case its Java 7. So the
> proposal is valid IMO. Then when switch to Java 8, we can mark the class as
> deprecated and remove it in 4.0. I'm not hard set on including this
> specific class, it's just something I use.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message