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 15:40:40 GMT
On 20/03/2009, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > See post from Niall - it causes problems with OSGI bundles.
>  >
>  > If anything, I see that as an abuse of optional, because it's not optional.
>
>
> But, it *is* optional, because the annotations are not required at
>  runtime.

It's only optional at run-time; it's not optional at compile-time.

>  Putting it in "provided" scope means that it's up to the
>  users to make sure it is actually provided in the runtime environment
>  (such as the servlet API or something).  This would make users think
>  they need to make sure it's there when they really don't.

I guess we need to see what Maven does with the "provided" scope, and
see if that is worse than its behaviour "compile+optional".

In the meantime, I've changed the scope to provided, but added a
comment to say the dependency is optional at run-time.

> The dependency is a compile-time (the default scope), optional dependency.

No, it's not optional at compile-time.

It seems neither compile+optional nor provided will satisfy everyone,
so maybe the JIRA issue I raised and closed needs to be resurrected:

http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4097

Would you be willing to explain your concerns there?
[I'll re-open it if you cannot]

>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  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