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.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
