Re: Nullability annotations

2024-01-02 Thread Matt Sicker
Nullability annotations are trivial to remove. I’ve added some basic aliases for them in main. As it stands, they’re copies of the four JSpecify annotations with those annotations applied to them along with equivalent JSR 305 meta-annotations to make the annotations function the same in existing

Re: Nullability annotations

2024-01-02 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:00 PM Piotr P. Karwasz wrote: > > Hi Ralph, > > On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 11:59, Apache wrote: > > > > If this is a runtime dependency then I am against using it in Log4J api and > > core. > > It is an annotation-only library, with a retention of `RUNTIME`. > However annotat

Re: Nullability annotations

2024-01-02 Thread Piotr P. Karwasz
Hi Ralph, On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 11:59, Apache wrote: > > If this is a runtime dependency then I am against using it in Log4J api and > core. It is an annotation-only library, with a retention of `RUNTIME`. However annotations should not cause `NoClassDefFoundError`s. Piotr

Re: Nullability annotations

2024-01-02 Thread Apache
If this is a runtime dependency then I am against using it in Log4J api and core. Ralph > On Jan 2, 2024, at 3:17 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote: > > Hi all, > > Matt made an interesting proposal to use JSpecify nullability > annotations in Log4j: > > https://github.com/apache/logging-parent/is