On 2/11/2014 4:53 PM, sebb wrote:
On 11 February 2014 22:40, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 02/10/2014 10:16 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
Hi,
this is an issue I was thinking about for some time now, and it is quite
some recurrent theme that we face in Commons.
Considering our release practice, it i
Hi sebb,
maybe we should start doing this in a smaller component and then others
might pick up afterwards.
I guess Codec is a good candidate?
Thomas
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:53 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 February 2014 22:40, Thomas Neidhart
> wrote:
> > On 02/10/2014 10:16 AM, Thomas Neidhart
On 11 February 2014 22:40, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 02/10/2014 10:16 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this is an issue I was thinking about for some time now, and it is quite
>> some recurrent theme that we face in Commons.
>>
>> Considering our release practice, it is actually quite har
On 02/10/2014 10:16 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is an issue I was thinking about for some time now, and it is quite
> some recurrent theme that we face in Commons.
>
> Considering our release practice, it is actually quite hard to come up
> with new features as the API is more or le
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 2/10/14, 5:14 PM, sebb wrote:
> > The advantage of annotations over Javadoc is that the meaning of each
> > annotation is precisely defined.
> >
> > Javadoc is mainly written in natural language.
> > This much harder to pin down precisely
On 02/11/2014 12:01 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 2/10/14, 1:16 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this is an issue I was thinking about for some time now, and it is quite
>> some recurrent theme that we face in Commons.
>>
>> Considering our release practice, it is actually quite hard to come u
Gonna have to agree with Phil here. In a couple years, when you're digging
through an API and you run into a random annotation that says @Internal,
you're not going to remember why it was. Adding that kind of specificity
would require documentation (Javadoc), which makes the presence of the
annotat
On 2/10/14, 5:14 PM, sebb wrote:
> The advantage of annotations over Javadoc is that the meaning of each
> annotation is precisely defined.
>
> Javadoc is mainly written in natural language.
> This much harder to pin down precisely (and harder to parse), unless
> one defines a convention for how to
On 11 February 2014 02:12, Chris wrote:
> Conversely, adding an annotation would require the addition of features to
> external tool sets and boilerplate to make it work seamlessly, rather than
> just being a nuisance. It's definitely a win some, lose some situation from
> the sounds of it.
If th
Conversely, adding an annotation would require the addition of features to
external tool sets and boilerplate to make it work seamlessly, rather than
just being a nuisance. It's definitely a win some, lose some situation from
the sounds of it.
-Chris
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:14 PM, sebb wrote:
The advantage of annotations over Javadoc is that the meaning of each
annotation is precisely defined.
Javadoc is mainly written in natural language.
This much harder to pin down precisely (and harder to parse), unless
one defines a convention for how to express the various
characteristics of the
On 2/10/14, 1:16 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is an issue I was thinking about for some time now, and it is quite
> some recurrent theme that we face in Commons.
>
> Considering our release practice, it is actually quite hard to come up with
> new features as the API is more or less fi
If you could get the tool support there, then I could definitely see a
reason for the annotations. Without the tool support though, it just seems
like unnecessary documentation bloat.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Thomas Neidhart
wrote:
> On 02/10/2014 05:44 PM, Chris wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
>
On 02/10/2014 05:44 PM, Chris wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> If this is only for documentary purposes, it seems a bit strange in my
> mind. Wouldn't a comment at the header serve the same purpose?
right now it would mainly be used for documentation purposes as tool
support is not yet there. Instead of b
On 10 February 2014 17:55, Matt Benson wrote:
> Version 1.0 of jcip as available from Maven central seems to declare the
> annotations with runtime retention. However, it has always been my
> understanding that missing annotation types, even for those with runtime
> retention, did not cause error
Version 1.0 of jcip as available from Maven central seems to declare the
annotations with runtime retention. However, it has always been my
understanding that missing annotation types, even for those with runtime
retention, did not cause errors at runtime. I have just verified this by
creating a
On 10 February 2014 09:16, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Additionally, I would like to introduce also the annotations from the jcip (
> jcip.net). I do not know if we can add them as dependency, but we could
> also add them ourselves. IMO this would be of great benefit to our users if
> it is
Hi Thomas,
If this is only for documentary purposes, it seems a bit strange in my
mind. Wouldn't a comment at the header serve the same purpose?
-Chris
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:03 AM, luc wrote:
> Le 2014-02-10 10:16, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
>
>> this is an is
Le 2014-02-10 10:16, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
Hi,
Hi Thomas,
this is an issue I was thinking about for some time now, and it is
quite
some recurrent theme that we face in Commons.
Considering our release practice, it is actually quite hard to come up
with
new features as the API is more
Hi,
this is an issue I was thinking about for some time now, and it is quite
some recurrent theme that we face in Commons.
Considering our release practice, it is actually quite hard to come up with
new features as the API is more or less fixed once it has been included.
Ideally, this could or sh
20 matches
Mail list logo
