[jira] [Comment Edited] (TAMAYA-22) Do we really need ConfigOperator?

["Werner Keil (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAMAYA-22?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14244112#comment-14244112 ] 

Werner Keil edited comment on TAMAYA-22 at 12/12/14 1:20 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

I'd say it all depends on the minimum Java version for the API module (whether it ever became a JSR or not, modules like "core" or "CDI" could have different preconditions) If a stand-in for {{UnaryOperator}} sort of like {{ConfigOperator}} did NOT use {{@FunctionalInterface}} it would still be recognized as such by Java 8 but could work with Java 7 and Java EE 7 (or ME 8 ;-) ) too.


was (Author: wkeil):
I'd say it all depends on the minimum Java version for the API module (whether it ever became a JSR or not, modules like "core" or "CDI" could have different preconditions) If a stand-in for {{UnaryOperator}} sort of like {{ConfigurationOperator}} did NOT use {{@FunctionalInterface}} it would still be recognized as such by Java 8 but could work with Java 7 and Java EE 7 (or ME 8 ;-) ) too.

> Do we really need ConfigOperator?
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TAMAYA-22
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAMAYA-22
>             Project: Tamaya
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: API
>    Affects Versions: 0.1-incubating
>            Reporter: Werner Keil
>            Assignee: Anatole Tresch
>              Labels: api-change, design
>
> As of now using Lambdas (since {{@FunctionalInterface}} and similar types are heavily used) limit the minimal Java version for Tamaya to SE 8. 
> Unless this was to change, the {{ConfigOperator}} interface seems rather redundant. Using {{UnaryOperator<Configuration>}} instead would simplify the API and make it even more Lambda-friendly.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)