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 17:50:17 GMT
On 20/03/2009, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
>  >
>  > <scolebourne@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>  >  > sebb wrote:
>  >  >>
>  >  >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@btopenworld.com>
wrote:
>  >  >>>
>  >  >>>  So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficient to
>  >  >>> compilcate the compliation and to field the inevitable
>  >  >>> confusion/questions
>  >  >>> as to 'why we added a dependency' (when we didn't add one really...)
>  >  >>
>  >  >> Again, I'm not sure I follow.
>  >  >>
>  >  >> I don't see how the addition of a single new dependency complicates
>  >  >> the compilation.
>  >  >
>  >  > Because [lang] has no dependencies at present. That is a feature.
>  >  >
>  >  >> Nor do I see why users will be confused, so long as the site shows
>  >  >> that LANG depends on Java 1.5 only.  Many of them will just use Maven
>  >  >> to pick up the new version. If necessary one can always add some
>  >  >> information on the site as to how annotations behave.
>  >  >
>  >  > But due to the way maven generates documentation, and the data in the pom,
>  >  > it will /appear/ like [lang] does have a dependency.
>  >  >
>  >  > Since most users are unaware that annotation dependencies are not needed
at
>  >  > runtime, they will take the belt and braces approach and include the
>  >  > 'dependency'. Or stop using [lang].
>  >  >
>  >  >> Indeed hopefully users will start adding annotations to their own code...
>  >  >
>  >  > This change doesn't actually help with that, other than providing
>  >  > advertising for JCIP.
>  >  >
>  >  > I'm basically -0 to this change, as I think the confusion outweighs the
>  >  > gains.
>  >
>  >
>  > I agree with Stephen.
>  >
>  >  As well as the point he makes its also causing the
>  >  net.jcip.annotations package to be included in the OSGi Import-Package
>  >  statement in the manifest which I assume will make this a required
>  >  dependency when using lang in an OSGi environment. I guess that the
>  >  maven-bundle-plugin can probably be configured to stop that happening
>  >  but even if it can then I don't really see the point of using this
>  >  over just plain comments in the javadocs.
>  >
>
>
> How did you generate the OSGI stuff?
>
>  I've been experimenting with HC, and I don't see the same behaviour.
>

Take 2:

Just found a problem when using compile+optional in HC:

The generated bundle:
org.apache.httpcomponents.httpcore_4.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
contains a valid DEPENDENCIES file.
The MANIFEST looks OK too, no mention of jcip

However, the included archive:
httpcore-nio-4.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
has a DEPENDENCIES file which refers to JCIP.

Not sure if this is a problem for OSGI or not, but it is not consistent.

>  >  Niall
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  > Stephen
>  >
>  >  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >  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