JSR 335 seems outdated, not aligned with implementation

[Brian Goetz]

I think you have a mistaken assumption, that there is some part of 
JSR-335 that is "done" and that the other parts are "not caught up." 
The actual situation is that everything is in active development -- the 
design, the specs, the compiler implementation, the libraries, and the 
third-party IDEs like IntelliJ that are valiently keeping up with a 
moving target.

It sounds like you are not ready to be an early adopter -- which is 
fine.  Stay tuned here to track how the spec and implementation are 
evolving, and for a hint as to when they start settling.  But if you 
want to start blazing a trail now, you'll find support here.

Thanks for checking in!

On 12/10/2012 4:07 AM, Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm one of developers of Sonar ( http://www.sonarsource.org/ ). And looking
> at the fact that IntelliJ IDEA 12 already supports Java 8, I wanted to
> update our Java analyzer to also support changes in language, more
> precisely JSR-335 (lambda expressions, method and constructor references,
> default methods).
>
> Of course I started from specs, but quickly realized that they are
> different from what was implemented in OpenJDK Lambda project. For example:
> Part G: Default Methods - InterfaceMethodBody contains "default", whereas
> in reality it is part of modifiers. And maybe this is not the only one
> difference. Aleksey Shipilev confirmed that spec is a bit outdated and
> suggested to ask this question here (
> https://twitter.com/shipilev/status/277898648753410049 ). So my first
> question - is it possible to align specification with an
> implementation? Otherwise too risky to do an early adoption.
>
> The second question relates to the fact that Java Language Specification (
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/ ) contains two grammars - one for
> exposition (chapters 4, 6-10, 14 and 15) and another one, which is better
> suited to implementation (chapter 18). Seems that JSR-335 describes changes
> only in the first one. Even if they are pretty similar it would be great to
> know changes in the second one. Is it possible? This question relates to
> the fact that it took me quite some time to understand how left-recursion
> can be resolved between grammar rules "method reference" and "primary". I'm
> pretty sure that this problem was solved in reference implementation, but
> details of solution not exposed in the specification.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>