On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne >> >> <scolebou...@btopenworld.com> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> >> 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-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
