+1 for using @Priority (just because it's there already and users will be used to it)
regards, gerhard 2014-12-29 8:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > 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 > >>> > >> > > > > >
