commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
Date Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:44:03 GMT


--- On Thu, 3/19/09, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:

> From: James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
> Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
> To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 1:14 AM
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM,
> Stephen Colebourne
> <scolebourne@btopenworld.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thats OK technically (as there is no runtime
> dependency on
> > net.jcip.annotations). However, I suspect it will
> confuse users, as very few
> > people realise that no dependency is created beyond
> compilation time.
> >
> 
> I agree.  Most folks don't know that there annotation
> classes aren't
> really required at runtime.  If we're just looking for
> documentation,
> can't we have our own doclet?

*I* didn't know that the classes weren't required at RT... but I still don't know that we
should consider that a blocker.  Seems like a couple of well-placed warnings in documentation
would take care of that pretty well.  What does the annotation look like in the Javadoc? 
Because if the POM has it marked as optional (we can even include a comment there explaining
further) then the Javadoc would be the only place left for a user to get the wrong idea. 
Adding our own annotation seems like NIH...

-Matt

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