The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
scopeprovided/scope will not create a runtime dependency. This
should equal a compile-only scope.
PS: Java 7 will not be defining any source-level annotations for bug
tracking. That will be up to individual tools.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at
On 20/03/2009, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote:
The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
scopeprovided/scope will not create a runtime dependency. This
should equal a compile-only scope.
The problem with that is that the developer has to provide the
annotation jar in
sebb wrote:
On 20/03/2009, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote:
The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
scopeprovided/scope will not create a runtime dependency. This
should equal a compile-only scope.
The problem with that is that the developer has to provide the
On 20/03/2009, Eric Bowman ebow...@boboco.ie wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 20/03/2009, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote:
The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
scopeprovided/scope will not create a runtime dependency. This
should equal a compile-only scope.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
My bad, sorry.
The scope provided is what is required.
I misunderstood the documentation to mean that the user had to provide
the jar at compile-time, however it only requires the user to provide
the jar at run-time.
provided
On 20/03/2009, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
My bad, sorry.
The scope provided is what is required.
I misunderstood the documentation to mean that the user had to provide
the jar at compile-time,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
See post from Niall - it causes problems with OSGI bundles.
If anything, I see that as an abuse of optional, because it's not optional.
But, it *is* optional, because the annotations are not required at
runtime. Putting it in
On 20/03/2009, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
See post from Niall - it causes problems with OSGI bundles.
If anything, I see that as an abuse of optional, because it's not optional.
But, it *is* optional,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
It's only optional at run-time; it's not optional at compile-time.
Right. That's what optional means. Putting it as optional in Maven
will change the dependencies report:
http://commons.apache.org/proxy/dependencies.html
None of
James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
It's only optional at run-time; it's not optional at compile-time.
Right. That's what optional means. Putting it as optional in Maven
will change the dependencies report:
On 20/03/2009, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
It's only optional at run-time; it's not optional at compile-time.
Right. That's what optional means.
I thought I understood optional, obviously I didn't.
How
On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the
-Original Message-
From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:47 AM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
On 20/03/2009, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com
On 20/03/2009, Gary Gregory ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:47 AM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
On 20/03/2009, James Carman ja
On 20/03/2009, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@btopenworld.com
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Take 2:
Just found a problem when using compile+optional in HC:
The generated bundle:
org.apache.httpcomponents.httpcore_4.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
contains a valid DEPENDENCIES file.
The MANIFEST looks OK too, no mention of jcip
On 20/03/2009, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/03/2009, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
sebb wrote:
On
On 20/03/2009, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Take 2:
Just found a problem when using compile+optional in HC:
The generated bundle:
org.apache.httpcomponents.httpcore_4.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
contains a
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought I understood optional, obviously I didn't.
How does one express a dependency that really is optional at compile time?
This particular dependency isn't optional at compile time (not for
lang which would be using it in its
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
How about we fix the felix plugin?
We?
We as in the ASF. If we've got a beef with it, we should report it to
them. Perhaps it has already been reported?
Or can't we tell it to ignore that stuff somehow via configuration?
So
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:14 PM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
How about we fix the felix plugin?
We?
We as in the ASF. If we've got a beef with it, we should report it to
them. Perhaps it has already been
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
Really though does this stuff work because I tried changing the
guarded statement you put in ExceptionUtils and findbugs didn't
complain at all - so seems like the automated checking is broken in at
least one
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
Thats OK technically (as there is no runtime dependency on
net.jcip.annotations). However, I suspect it will confuse users, as very few
people realise that no dependency is created beyond compilation time.
On 19/03/2009, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
Thats OK technically (as there is no runtime dependency on
net.jcip.annotations). However, I suspect it will confuse users, as very
On 19/03/2009, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote:
I think the use of JCIP annotations should be an Apache Commons-wide
decision. It would only be sensible to share the annotations across
projects. Otherwise, we could get fragmentation pretty easily.
Fragmentation?
If a project uses
sebb,
I must have mis-stated my point. If Commons Lang uses JCIP @Immutable
annotations, and another Commons project uses a theoretical XYZ
@NotMutable annotations, we will have lost the ability to track bugs
across project boundaries. So my point was that we should all agree
that using JCIP --
Yes, *if* a project wants to use it, they should all use the same
thing. That way, we can put something in the parent pom file that
uses the annotations.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote:
sebb,
I must have mis-stated my point. If Commons Lang uses JCIP
On 19/03/2009, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote:
sebb,
I must have mis-stated my point. If Commons Lang uses JCIP @Immutable
annotations, and another Commons project uses a theoretical XYZ
@NotMutable annotations, we will have lost the ability to track bugs
across project
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficient to
compilcate the compliation and to field the inevitable confusion/questions
as to 'why we added a dependency' (when we didn't add one really...)
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
But due to the way maven generates documentation, and the data in the pom,
it will /appear/ like [lang] does have a dependency.
We can mark it as optional in our pom. That way, it won't be included
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficient to
compilcate the compliation and to field the inevitable
On 19/03/2009, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
But due to the way maven generates documentation, and the data in the pom,
it will /appear/ like [lang] does have a dependency.
We
--- On Thu, 3/19/09, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
From: James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
To: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 1:14 AM
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM,
Stephen
On 19/03/2009, Matt Benson gudnabr...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 3/19/09, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
From: James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
To: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Date: Thursday
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:58 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, unless it is a Commons-specific (or ASF) annotation (who knows,
this might be useful one day), we should use exising ones.
If it's commons-specific, then we have to code the stuff that uses
it (like a findbugs plugin or
-Original Message-
From: paulus.benedic...@gmail.com [mailto:paulus.benedic...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Paul Benedict
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:37 AM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
sebb,
I must have mis-stated my point. If Commons
On 19/03/2009, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:58 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, unless it is a Commons-specific (or ASF) annotation (who knows,
this might be useful one day), we should use exising ones.
If it's commons-specific, then we
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficient to
compilcate the compliation and to field the inevitable
On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne
Sebb,
After Lang 3.0 gets released, why not branch just for the JCIP stuff?
Sometimes you can only convince my demonstration. I think that would
be an acceptable evaluation.
Paul
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM,
+0 on the idea (tending to +1 with better understanding of the value).
I've not used jcip-annotations, but it seems like a good thing to
depend upon. Shared concerns with thread:
* Adding a dependency is wince-worthy, but I agree with you on it
being akin to JUnit and not runtime. We should have
I've added JCIP annotations jar to the POM, but not started adding any
actual annotations yet.
The idea would be to annotate every class as one of
@Immutable
@ThreadSafe
@NotThreadSafe
These annotation appear in the Javadoc output in the class description.
Also, for objects that need
Googling led me to the httpclient thread you started. If there is no runtime
dependency I am fine with it. :)
-Matt
--- On Wed, 3/18/09, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
From: sebb seb...@gmail.com
Subject: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
To: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Date
sebb wrote:
I've added JCIP annotations jar to the POM, but not started adding any
actual annotations yet.
The idea would be to annotate every class as one of
@Immutable
@ThreadSafe
@NotThreadSafe
These annotation appear in the Javadoc output in the class description.
Also, for objects that
On 18/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
sebb wrote:
I've added JCIP annotations jar to the POM, but not started adding any
actual annotations yet.
The idea would be to annotate every class as one of
@Immutable
@ThreadSafe
@NotThreadSafe
These
sebb wrote:
I think that there is the distinct possibility of other groups including
these annotatons. Maybe even JDK7. Should [lang] include them. Or use
slightly different names?
Not sure I follow.
These are existing annotations, from http://jcip.net/:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
sebb wrote:
I think that there is the distinct possibility of other groups
including
these annotatons. Maybe even JDK7. Should [lang] include them. Or use
slightly different names?
Not sure I follow.
sebb wrote:
Are you proposing including these pieces of annotation code in [lang], or
just referencing them? If its just referencing them, then it has no real
effect, and should be fine (aprt from making the compilation a little more
complex)
I'm not sure what you mean by including or
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@btopenworld.com wrote:
sebb wrote:
Are you proposing including these pieces of annotation code in [lang],
or
just referencing them? If its just referencing them, then it has no real
effect, and should be fine (aprt from making the
I think the use of JCIP annotations should be an Apache Commons-wide
decision. It would only be sensible to share the annotations across
projects. Otherwise, we could get fragmentation pretty easily.
Paul
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:48 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen
52 matches
Mail list logo
