Re: Java 8 Lambda binary snapshot
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.
Usually app server versions and specific JVM versions are tied.
It is even in the specs.
Java EE 6 spec:
This specification requires that containers provide a Java Compatible=99=
runtime environment, as defined by the Java Platform, Standard Edition,=
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.
--
Lew