commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@btopenworld.com>
Subject Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
Date Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:06:11 GMT
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.

Stephen

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


Mime
View raw message