JSR-250 is not EE but SE. So it is perfectly fine to just use that. Doing some 'private' javax packages is not allowed by the JCP.
LieGrue, strub On Monday, 29 December 2014, 7:11, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > > >We can also rely on an intermediate version doing a tamaya-javax which would >be provided for ee and imported for se. We would copy on needed classes. >Benefit would be to stay aligned on EE and avoid introducity new api without >having to bring the whole jar if too big compared to our usage. >Le 29 déc. 2014 01:39, "Werner Keil" <[email protected]> a écrit : > >Well JSR-330 is not part of SE either;-) >> >>If we're lucky Java SE 9 brings a more modular approach also to adding such >>pieces without the whole EE stack, but until then a JAR that (in Maven) >>isn't more than 2x the 3 kb of JSR 330 does not sound like a great burden >>to me. >> >>Werner >> >>On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Anatole and I are currently discussing whether it is worth it adding >>> @Priority or not. >>> >>> It would make a few interfaces more elegant but this also has one >>> downside. This version of JSR-250 is not yet in JavaSE by default. Of >>> course it is needed for all JavaEE7++ servers. >>> >>> The question now is whether we can burden our users to add >>> commons-annotation-1.2 in SE? >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >> > >
