commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
Date Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:29:32 GMT
Sebb,

After Lang 3.0 gets released, why not branch just for the JCIP stuff?
Sometimes you can only convince my demonstration. I think that would
be an acceptable evaluation.

Paul

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Niall Pemberton
<niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM, 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.
>>
>> The point is that the annotations can be checked using automated
>> tools, so changes that break the contract are detected. Much the same
>> reason as using generics.
>
> Theres a question over whether this is actually working ATM.
>
>> means to automate checking it. Updating Javadoc is as much work but no
>> a automated checking benefit.
>>
>> Seems to me that most of the reasons for not implementing this are
>> that Maven does not seem handle the compile-time only dependency
>> properly.
>
> True but thats our build tool of choice ATM and this feature is only
> for documenting/checking and doesn't actually add anything to Lang's
> functionality - esp when it could just be as easily documented in the
> javadocs without the annotations.
>
> Niall
>
>>>
>>>  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