On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 at 16:15, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think we need this, mostly because I prefer to not have issues with
> annotation X vs. Y vs. Z. There are a ton of these types of annotations out
> there and using one vs another because the Jetbrain IDE likes it is not a
> good enough reason IMO. There's also a javax version, and a jakarta
> version, and so on. Then there is the retention issue, and which one to
> pick and why, which then brings you to who really is the client for these,
> the source maintainer? The IDE tooling? A runtime framework? I'd rather
> skip all of it until it becomes a requirement.
Agreed.
We certainly don't want annotations that create a runtime dependency.
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 9:50 AM Claude Warren <cla...@xenei.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the general stance on commons to import the annotations? Is there
> > a reason not to? I'm happy to make the changes but want to make sure there
> > is not a blocker first.
> >
> > Claude
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 9:56 AM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > yep, I always think, this kind of allow null not allow null things shall
> > be
> > > marked not by doc, but by annotations.
> > >
> > > Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> 于2024年10月15日周二 04:10写道：
> > >
> > > > 1. important jetbrains annotations as maven dependency.
> > > > 2.add @Nullable in parent class's param
> > > > 3.add @NotNull at child class param
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > *From:* Gary D. Gregory <ggreg...@apache.org>
> > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 15, 2024 3:29:20 AM
> > > > *To:* dev@commons.apache.org <dev@commons.apache.org>
> > > > *Subject:* [CLI] Javadoc
> > > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > We now have append methods like:
> > > >
> > > > public interface HelpAppendable extends Appendable {
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * Appends a header.
> > > > *
> > > > * @param level the level of the header. This is equivalent to the
> > > > "1", "2", or "3" in the HTML "h1", "h2", "h3" tags.
> > > > * @param text the text for the header
> > > > * @throws IOException on write failure
> > > > */
> > > > void appendHeader(int level, CharSequence text) throws IOException;
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > The supertype defines behavior for null input, but here we do not, we
> > > > should either document it as:
> > > > - Same as the super type, same kind of Javadoc
> > > > - Explicitly document that it is up to the implementing class
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
