On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Niall Pemberton
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 place.
Does the check ha
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
>>
>> wrote:
>> > sebb wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:14 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM, sebb 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?
FYI:
http://issues.apac
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM, sebb 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 long as
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM, sebb 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 source). It w
On 20/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM, sebb 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.
>
On 20/03/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 20/03/2009, sebb wrote:
> > On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > sebb wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> >
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM, sebb 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
>
> However, th
On 20/03/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> >
> > wrote:
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is s
On 20/03/2009, Gary Gregory 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 20/03/200
> -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 wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb wrote
On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
>
> wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficient to
> >>> compilcate the compliation and to f
On 20/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb 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 does one express a dependency that r
James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb 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/depend
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb 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 the dependenci
On 20/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, sebb 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 re
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, sebb 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 "provided" scope m
On 20/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, sebb 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 us
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, sebb 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" does
On 20/03/2009, Eric Bowman wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 20/03/2009, Paul Benedict wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
> > > provided will not create a runtime dependency. This
> > > should equal a compile-only scope.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The problem with t
sebb wrote:
On 20/03/2009, Paul Benedict wrote:
The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
provided 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 order to run
On 20/03/2009, Paul Benedict wrote:
> The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
> provided 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 order to run the compile. This
The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
provided 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 12:38 AM, Henri
+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 c
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
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 20/03/
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
>>
>> wrote:
>> > sebb wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is
On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
>
> wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficient to
> >>> compilcate the compliation and to f
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne 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 a
On 19/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:58 AM, sebb 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
>
> -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 mus
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:58 AM, sebb 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 something). Using
On 19/03/2009, Matt Benson wrote:
>
>
> --- On Thu, 3/19/09, James Carman wrote:
>
> > From: James Carman
> > Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
>
> > To: "Commons Developers List"
>
> > Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 1:14 AM
--- On Thu, 3/19/09, James Carman wrote:
> From: James Carman
> Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 1:14 AM
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM,
> Stephen Colebourne
>
> wrote:
> >
On 19/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Stephen Colebourne
> 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
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne 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 depende
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Stephen Colebourne
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
transitively.
-
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne 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...)
Again, I'm not sure I follow.
On 19/03/2009, Paul Benedict 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 boundaries. So my poin
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 wrote:
> sebb,
>
> I must have mis-stated my point. If Commons Lang uses JCIP @Immutable
> anno
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 -- if
On 19/03/2009, Paul Benedict 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 concurrency annotat
On 19/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> 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 c
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Stephen Colebourne
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.
>
I agree. Most folks
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 wrote:
> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne 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 compilation a little
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 "refe
On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne 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.
> >
> > 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/:
http://jcip.net/annotations/doc/index
On 18/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne 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 annotation
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 n
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 wrote:
> From: sebb
> Subject: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Wednesday, March 18,
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 synchroniz
52 matches
Mail list logo
