On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@btopenworld.com> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > > > > > I think that there is the distinct possibility of other groups > including > > > these annotatons. Maybe even JDK7. Should [lang] include them. Or use > > > slightly different names? > > > > > > > Not sure I follow. > > > > These are existing annotations, from http://jcip.net/: > > > > http://jcip.net/annotations/doc/index.html > > > > [Sorry, I forgot to reference my original posting to the LANG thread: > > > > > http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--lang--3.0%2C-what%27s-in--what%27s-out-p22511906.html > > > > ] > > > > Are you proposing including these pieces of annotation code in [lang], or > just referencing them? If its just referencing them, then it has no real > effect, and should be fine (aprt from making the compilation a little more > complex) >
I'm not sure what you mean by "including" or "referencing". I am proposing to add import net.jcip.annotations.Immutable and @Immutable to the source files of classes that deserve it. Similarly for the other cases. Much like using @Override, except that the annotations are not part of the JDK. > Stephen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
