sebb wrote:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@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.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
