theigl commented on PR #1093: URL: https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/1093#issuecomment-2639708894
> So I think that higher-level declarations of (non-)nullability is not an option for now. Agreed. That only makes sense if we completely annotate a whole module or at least a whole package. I think we can go ahead with your current JSpecify PR and continue improving the annotations in future work. The only minor concern I still have with this PR is that we are adding `@NonNull`. From my experience (and also what JSpecify recommends and large projects like Spring are doing) `@Nullable` makes more sense in the long run. At some point, we will have to remove all these `@NonNull` annotations. But this should be a trivial change. And then there is the question of how we continue with this and what we require in future PRs. Is our goal to completely annotate the whole Wicket codebase? Do we add nullability annotations whenever we touch existing code? Do we require them in PRs? Or is this a one-time effort to slightly improve the developer experience? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
