Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of paulus.benedictus@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.46.157 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=qqpaW7glPQXp9PDqKCzDldluTXpeNatRczTmN6VWd9gt2ftqkIbtfomn/U8Lk3+o3g
         SOVJplK8QAhL0I5C5Y9z6i9WU8LjqK+LehX3iJ+wT6GRfEMO38ZEUafv6rTsHas6uhIq
         ErudCsfWolz75OHkG9FBzY2yk+K2j8DtJDd4s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: paulus.benedictus@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <55afdc850903191926l4ce1f90fs834f3cd9b5170c74@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25aac9fc0903180851n7c8c6875waeea71313ce6696d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <25aac9fc0903181600v1bb4bb2cu45dd07008dcd14e6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49C1A6BE.5000003@btopenworld.com>
	 <25aac9fc0903181908s753b5bbel98dc448794531e3b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49C1AC32.7070404@btopenworld.com>
	 <25aac9fc0903181948p6edead9cv8bc72270e9159e5f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49C25F63.5000806@btopenworld.com>
	 <55afdc850903191805j63a1b85eq1b145d2d98e8bfe3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <25aac9fc0903191824i7d1eea0ej8fca29ca4d3d929d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <55afdc850903191926l4ce1f90fs834f3cd9b5170c74@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:29:32 -0500
Message-ID: <b9e663070903191929k3cba14acg27f47c034cbee630@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
From: Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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:
>>> =A0> sebb wrote:
>>> =A0>>
>>> =A0>> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@btopenworld.com> w=
rote:
>>> =A0>>>
>>> =A0>>> =A0So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficien=
t to
>>> =A0>>> compilcate the compliation and to field the inevitable
>>> =A0>>> confusion/questions
>>> =A0>>> as to 'why we added a dependency' (when we didn't add one really=
...)
>>> =A0>>
>>> =A0>> Again, I'm not sure I follow.
>>> =A0>>
>>> =A0>> I don't see how the addition of a single new dependency complicat=
es
>>> =A0>> the compilation.
>>> =A0>
>>> =A0> Because [lang] has no dependencies at present. That is a feature.
>>> =A0>
>>> =A0>> Nor do I see why users will be confused, so long as the site show=
s
>>> =A0>> that LANG depends on Java 1.5 only. =A0Many of them will just use=
 Maven
>>> =A0>> to pick up the new version. If necessary one can always add some
>>> =A0>> information on the site as to how annotations behave.
>>> =A0>
>>> =A0> But due to the way maven generates documentation, and the data in =
the pom,
>>> =A0> it will /appear/ like [lang] does have a dependency.
>>> =A0>
>>> =A0> Since most users are unaware that annotation dependencies are not =
needed at
>>> =A0> runtime, they will take the belt and braces approach and include t=
he
>>> =A0> 'dependency'. Or stop using [lang].
>>> =A0>
>>> =A0>> Indeed hopefully users will start adding annotations to their own=
 code...
>>> =A0>
>>> =A0> This change doesn't actually help with that, other than providing
>>> =A0> advertising for JCIP.
>>> =A0>
>>> =A0> I'm basically -0 to this change, as I think the confusion outweigh=
s the
>>> =A0> gains.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Stephen.
>>>
>>> =A0As well as the point he makes its also causing the
>>> =A0net.jcip.annotations package to be included in the OSGi Import-Packa=
ge
>>> =A0statement in the manifest which I assume will make this a required
>>> =A0dependency when using lang in an OSGi environment. I guess that the
>>> =A0maven-bundle-plugin can probably be configured to stop that happenin=
g
>>> =A0but even if it can then I don't really see the point of using this
>>> =A0over 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
>
>>>
>>> =A0Niall
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =A0> 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