commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
Date Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:01:37 GMT
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM, 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?

The maven-bundle-plugin is configured in the commons-parent pom so
that all components are built OSGi ready.

I have overriden the default export directive in the Lang pom to
exclude the jcip annotation package and this seems to work (i.e. it no
longer includes the jcip package in the OSGi export statement in
Lang's manifest)

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=756756

Really though does this stuff work because I tried changing the
guarded statement you put in ExceptionUtils and findbugs didn't
complain at all - so seems like the automated checking is broken in at
least one place.

Niall

> I've been experimenting with HC, and I don't see the same behaviour.
>
>>  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
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message