From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Java 8 Lambda binary snapshot Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:28:46 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 42 Message-ID: <15937048.530.1321424926867.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prap37> References: <2244638.2045.1321057203472.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prep8> <4ebe8090$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <7580854.318.1321121258309.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlm15> <7958763.239.1321281909576.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prou19> <4ec31323$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Reply-To: comp.lang.java.programmer@googlegroups.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.164.137.214 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1321425046 12369 127.0.0.1 (16 Nov 2011 06:30:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:30:46 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <4ec31323$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.164.137.214; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.franciliens.net!feed.ac-versailles.fr!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!74.125.46.80.MISMATCH!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:9970 Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > Lew wrote: >> Why don't the vendors certify for the later Java in anything less than f= ive years? >> >> It's the same question. Pushing it back one level doesn't answer it. >=20 > Usually app server versions and specific JVM versions are tied. >=20 > It is even in the specs. >=20 > Java EE 6 spec: >=20 > This specification requires that containers provide a Java Compatible=99= =20 > runtime environment, as defined by the Java Platform, Standard Edition,= =20 > v6 specification (Java SE). > ... And? That says nothing about the vendors or why they lag the specs for so long. = It is a summary of the specs that they might lag. Mind you, I don't think it's a bad thing to be conservative in platform mig= ration. I've worked in Enterprise Java for a fair bit and it's no small th= ing for, say, a government agency that processes 100 million documents in a= week to change platforms. My earlier comment about EOL as a guarantee of = stability is not entirely a joke, and certainly not the fictional kind. It's also no mean feat to implement a Java EE spec in a way that lets such = an application work successfully. All of which raises the question as to why there needs to be an upgraded Ja= va version in the first place. Maybe the right thing to do is to let a lan= guage specification stagnate, at least for rather longer than programmers a= re used to imagining. Maybe basing large-scale mission-critical systems on= a sessile platform is the wise choice. --=20 Lew