According to p.1 "API changes require discussion, use cases, etc. Code comes later.", I'm going to start discussion about benefits of proposed changes. 

Now com.google.common.cache.CacheBuilder contains such methods as
`refreshAfterWrite(long duration, TimeUnit unit)`
`expireAfterWrite(long duration, TimeUnit unit)`
`expireAfterAccess(long duration, TimeUnit unit)`
Parameters of methods listed below are used to define durations in time.
However, in Java 8 new class,  [java.time.Duration](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/time/Duration.html), was presented. It can be used to save info about time durations in exactly one object. That is easier and more transparent in some real-world scenarios. 

The idea is to add overloaded methods:
`refreshAfterWrite(Duration duration)
expireAfterWrite(Duration duration)
expireAfterAccess(Duration duration)`

Proposed changes provide possibilities to simplify code:
`expireAfterWrite(Duration.ofHours(3))
// instead of
expireAfterWrite(3, TimeUnit.HOURS)
`
It makes easier to declare constant durations too:

`public static final Duration EXPIRES_IN = Duration.ofHours(1);
// some code after statement
expireAfterWrite(EXPIRES_IN)
`
instead of
`public static final long DURATION_LENGTH = 1;
 public static final TimeUnit DURATION_TIME_UNIT = TimeUnit.HOURS;
 // some code after statement
 expireAfterWrite(DURATION_LENGTH, DURATION_TIME_UNIT)
`

Also, it allows to execute some arifmetic operations like addition or subtraction, that can simplify program logic if multiple (and dependant) durations in different methods and/or in different caches are used. Just something like this (simplified synthetic example):
`
Duration expiresAfterAccessIn = Duration.ofMinutes(30);
CacheBuilder.newBuilder()
                    .expireAfterAccess(expiresAfterAccessIn)
                    .expireAfterWrite(expiresAfterAccessIn.plusHours(1))
                    .build();
`

This improvements do not lead to changing min java sdk version and do not break existing API.
* simply use the standard method-chaining idiom, as illustrated in the documentation at top,
   * configuring a {@code CacheBuilder} and building your {@link Cache} all in a single statement.
   *
   * <p><b>Warning:</b> if you ignore the above advice, and use this {@code CacheBuilder} to build a
   * cache whose key or value type is incompatible with the weigher, you will likely experience a
   * {@link ClassCastException} at some <i>undefined</i> point in the future.
   *
   * @param weigher the weigher to use in calculating the weight of cache entries
   * @return this {@code CacheBuilder} instance (for chaining)
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code size} is negative
   * @throws IllegalStateException if a maximum size was already set
   * @since 11.0
   */
  @GwtIncompatible 
  public <K1 extends K, V1 extends V> CacheBuilder<K1, V1> weigher(
      Weigher<? super K1, ? super V1> weigher) {
    checkState(this.weigher == null);
    if (strictParsing) {
      checkState(
          this.maximumSize == UNSET_INT,
          "weigher can not be combined with maximum size",
          this.maximumSize);
    }
    
    @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
    CacheBuilder<K1, V1> me = (CacheBuilder<K1, V1>) this;
    me.weigher = checkNotNull(weigher);
    return me;
  }
  long getMaximumWeight() {