Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABDss3g1Q1phQ_gDm_Z6BCtgVMyFa9e=1cETBj3mJtTe+i7x_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOKDqC8DOWNEYcqg-8BC9TheWETsChoom1CouJeVOvAr+6+zwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+eZwrHR7e1EWS+nGLgXENqRwNZ77w3tvpPypff3mQg8KzWGmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOKDqC_YHWPkVqVPONiz7v207iWLqHLWKNv6JUNfSzAxnduxtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoWgE8wijm5gvexYcZzjHhgr8FzLY41TMDpF8_wC1E9Rvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOKDqC-JbyY-GBYPFOeYeWqhJrpABw4KGUk1vyhtD7n9iZRh1w@mail.gmail.com> <CABDss3g1Q1phQ_gDm_Z6BCtgVMyFa9e=1cETBj3mJtTe+i7x_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anton Vinogradov <avinogradov@gridgain.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 00:10:51 +0300
Message-ID: <CAOKDqC_ak=F26mfQM8-SarEj6Lsn2LV+p6nmu9hODNxtrh+C9g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: JetBrains Annotaions usage.
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141170675dd130538ccaf96
archived-at: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 21:10:58 -0000

--001a1141170675dd130538ccaf96
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Alexey, thanks for tips.
Seems maven dependency's "optional" tag can handle this.
See pullrequest <https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/909> for details.
P.s. I'm not pretty sure this change will not brake something, need to
recheck it twice.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to the JLS [1], adding or removing annotations has no effect on
> the correct linkage of the binary representations of programs in the Java
> programming language. Even if these annotations were RUNTIME, a user could
> successfully use Ignite unless he explicitly uses those classes in runtime.
> See also [2]
>
> [1]
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-13.html#jls-13.5.7
> [2] http://bugs.java.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6322301
>
> 2016-07-28 16:29 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <avinogradov@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > Annotations have @Retention(RetentionPolicy.CLASS)
> > which means
> >      * Annotations are to be recorded in the class file by the compiler
> >      * but need not be retained by the VM at run time.  This is the
> default
> >      * behavior.
> >
> > So, from what I understand, everyone using ignite API with such
> annotations
> > still require them, correct?
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anton, compile-time annotations should mean that Ignite should not
> > require
> > > these libraries at runtime. Did you try it already and run into issues?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > avinogradov@gridgain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Possible, what's the solution in this case?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think that JB annotations is a runtime dependency, we
> should
> > > need
> > > > > them only at compile time, no?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sergi
> > > > >
> > > > > 2016-07-28 11:09 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you may know we had only 2 dependencies at ignite-core: jcache
> > and
> > > > > > ignite-shmen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IGNITE-3323 Get rid of copypasted JB annotations, use dependency
> > > > instead.
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3323> brings one
> > more
> > > > > > dependency to org.jetbrains.annotations.
> > > > > > This solves problems for people using JB annotations at their
> > > projects.
> > > > > but
> > > > > > makes ignite-core less dependency-lightweight.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JB annotaions are used to highlight null problems in IDE and
> > provide
> > > > some
> > > > > > understanding to users on whether null is allowed/possible in
> > > concrete
> > > > > > place. I doubt other products/frameworks use it much.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But, do we really need them? As for me, we can replace all these
> > > > > > annotations by asserts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I propose to discontinue usage of jb annotation and replace them
> by
> > > > > > asserts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--001a1141170675dd130538ccaf96--