commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
Date Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:38:07 GMT
+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 <> 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.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message