commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
Date Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:53:43 GMT
On 20/03/2009, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:
> The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
>  <scope>provided</scope> will not create a runtime dependency. This
>  should equal a compile-only scope.

The problem with that is that the developer has to provide the
annotation jar in order to run the compile. This is an extra stage.
I'm not sure what it involves.

If we can find a method to automate the provision process within the
Maven build, then that would work. Otherwise, we are just making it
awkward for developers.

>  PS: Java 7 will not be defining any source-level annotations for bug
>  tracking. That will be up to individual tools.
>
>
>  On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > +0 on the idea (tending to +1 with better understanding of the value).
>  > I've not used jcip-annotations, but it seems like a good thing to
>  > depend upon. Shared concerns with thread:
>  >
>  > * Adding a dependency is wince-worthy, but I agree with you on it
>  > being akin to JUnit and not runtime. We should have confidence in this
>  > area and we can beat up on Maven if there are issues in the site.
>  >
>  > * Java 7 - if these went in would it be painful in any way? Presumably
>  > they wouldn't be in java.lang.*. Just raising the 'what would like
>  > look like then?' flag.
>  >
>  > Can you show what source, javadoc, site etc would look like for some
>  > example classes?
>  >
>  > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:51 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >> I've added JCIP annotations jar to the POM, but not started adding any
>  >> actual annotations yet.
>  >>
>  >> The idea would be to annotate every class as one of
>  >>
>  >> @Immutable
>  >> @ThreadSafe
>  >> @NotThreadSafe
>  >>
>  >> These annotation appear in the Javadoc output in the class description.
>  >>
>  >> Also, for objects that need synchronization to ensure thread safety,
>  >> add the annotation
>  >>
>  >> @GuardedBy
>  >>
>  >> Are there any objections to proceeding with this?
>  >>
>  >> It's probably easiest to deal with @Immutable first, then @ThreadSafe.
>  >>
>  >> If no annotation is present, then the user _should_ assume that the
>  >> class is @NotThreadSafe, but I think it would be better to always have
>  >> an annotation so that it's clear it has not been accidentally left
>  >> off.
>  >>
>  >> WDYT?
>  >>
>  >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>  >
>  >
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message