I prefer annotations (and I truly hate the serialVersionUID ;-) )

Yes, this brings a compile time dependency, but I don't think that is an issue 
-- particularly considering the use of other annotations like the BND @Version 
and @Export annotations in package-info.java or the DS annotations etc.

Regards
Felix

Am 25.02.2013 um 12:25 schrieb Emily Jiang:

> Currently the plugin does not handle this as some of you have correctly 
> pointed out the javadoc is only available at source form. The plugin is 
> looking at binary only. In WAS, we merely asks the developers to find out 
> whether it is consumer api or provider api and then change version 
> accordingly.
> 
> In summary, I do agree that we should unify or define a way to specify 
> whether it is provider or consumer api at the binary level (does introducing 
> a static variable something like SerialVersionUID make sense?).
> Cheers,
> Emily
> 
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:57 AM, David Bosschaert 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On 24 February 2013 16:39, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am 22.02.2013 um 16:43 schrieb David Bosschaert:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was looking at the Aries Versioning Plugin and have a few questions:
> >
> > * How does one make the distinction between interfaces that are supposed to 
> > be implemented by the client? In OSGi this is typically marked with a 
> > @noimplement javadoc tag, but this doesn't seem to work? When I was playing 
> > with it additions to an interface (i.e. adding a method) always results in 
> > a minor version update, regardless of whether the @noimplement doclet tag 
> > was there or not... Or should that be configured differently?
> 
> How about using the BND @ConsumerType and @ProviderType annotations ? IIUIC 
> this also helps setting the appropriate import version ranges when using the 
> bundle plugin.
> 
> It does introduce an additional compile-time dependency though. Isn't that a 
> little awkward?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks
> Emily
> =================
> Emily Jiang
> [email protected]

Reply via email to