Just make the maven scope "provided" and we're good.
Regards,
Alan
On Apr 8, 2009, at 8:31 AM, Jeremy Haile wrote:
I don't think it's useful *for us* - I think it could be useful for
people that are using us (i.e. as documentation via metadata and for
tools).
However - the retention on these is runtime - so would that add
another dependency to using JSecurity. I don't think they're
valuable enough to add a dependency. I'd rather hope that these
annotations inspire adding this type of thing to the JDK.
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
Right, but can we use it any meaningful way for our framework? I
can't see
an obvious use at the moment...
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Jeremy Haile <[email protected]>
wrote:
These annotations are purely metadata that describes the way your
methods
were written (i.e. I'm declaring that this method is or isn't
threadsafe)
By declaring this metadata in a standard format, it's obvious to
people
using your code if your code is threadsafe or not - it can also be
used by
tools.
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
It is an interesting idea for sure, but how would we enforce this?
Currently the project has no notion of inspecting threads at
runtime. I
mean we could I suppose, but there is nothing currently. Any
ideas?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Maarten Bosteels <[email protected]
wrote:
Having a common language for describing the thread-safety
intentions
of a class is a big plus IMO.
+1
<dependency>
<groupId>net.jcip</groupId>
<artifactId>jcip-annotations</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
</dependency>
Maarten
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]
>
wrote:
http://www.javaconcurrencyinpractice.com/annotations/doc/index.html
wdyt?
Regards,
Alan
