Interesting point, Sebb. I wasn't clear why the annotations were being used in our codebase actually. That makes a lot of sense why they would be fair game to remove.
Thanks! On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > As I recall, the annotations were intended as documentation for the > classes, and had class retention. > > So I'm not sure how this can affect 3rd party code at runtime. > > On 9 March 2017 at 16:07, larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi HC devs - > > > > Do I understand correctly that the annotations were removed in 4.5.3 in > an > > incompatible way? > > Maybe I am missing something but breaking the code of existing consumers > in > > a dot release is bad practice. > > > > We needed to upgrade to 4.5.3 in order to get the SSL+SPNEGO fix that > broke > > us with 4.5.2 but now doing so breaks our annotation usage. > > > > Is there some strategy for existing code to migrate or to use a shim of > > sorts for this? > > > > In the meantime, it seems we will need to downgrade back to 4.5.1 again > to > > avoid the SSL+SPNEGO issue. > > > > If there are any critical security fixes/CVEs fixed between dot releases > > incompatible changes make it risky to upgrade. > > > > Hoping that you have some other answer for this. > > > > thanks, > > > > --larry > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
