While that's true I think we are putting an unnecessary requirement on the runtime. Just because we use some annotations for build time checks out of a sudden at runtime you need an additional bundle.
We have to run that script and rerelease everything, that's some work, but if we split it we can get over it quickly Regards Carsten Karl Pauls wrote > Would would be the problem with that? I wasn’t talking about a jpms module > - IMO, we can just create a bundle that contains and exports > javax.annotation and be done with it think. > > regards, > > Karl > > On Thursday, August 2, 2018, Konrad Windszus <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> However, I wanted to point out option b). IIRC, there is nothing >>> preventing us to just provide the package ourselves and then it would be >>> problem solved, no? >> >> Unfortunately not, due to potential split-packages: >> https://blog.codefx.org/java/jsr-305-java-9/ < >> https://blog.codefx.org/java/jsr-305-java-9/> >>> >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> On Thursday, August 2, 2018, Julian Reschke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2018-08-02 10:55, Stefan Seifert wrote: >>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> benefits: >>>>> - removes a blocker from achieving Java 9 compatibility >>>>> >>>> >>>> AFAICT, it's only Java 11 where there's an actual compat problem (but >> yes, >>>> that'll be the version we need to support soonish). >>>> >>>> ... > drawbacks: >>>>> - the jetbrains annotations include some more (mostly >> IntelliJ-specific) >>>>> annotations than only the nullable annotations >>>>> - the jetbrains annotations are no "standard annotations" >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, if there were "standard annotations" for this, we'd use them :-) >>>> >>>>> ... >>>> >>>> Best regards, Julian >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Karl Pauls >>> [email protected] >> >> > -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland [email protected]
