[DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Gerhard Petracek
Administrator
hi @ all,

we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for all our
annotations within a package.
however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains
annotations.
e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the package
"annotation".

currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation" package
and some don't)
-> we have to align it the one way or the other.
i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.

regards,
gerhard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Jason Porter
I'm happy either way. Though in the rest of Java EE, there are no
"annotation packages". Perhaps we should align with the way things are laid
out in the Java EE packages.


On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Gerhard Petracek <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> hi @ all,
>
> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for all our
> annotations within a package.
> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains
> annotations.
> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the package
> "annotation".
>
> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation" package
> and some don't)
> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>



--
Jason Porter
http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

john.d.ament
Unfortunately even the EE specs are not in agreement whether or not to have
an annotation package.

I think we should drop the packages.


On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jason Porter <[hidden email]>wrote:

> I'm happy either way. Though in the rest of Java EE, there are no
> "annotation packages". Perhaps we should align with the way things are laid
> out in the Java EE packages.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Gerhard Petracek <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > hi @ all,
> >
> > we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for all our
> > annotations within a package.
> > however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains
> > annotations.
> > e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the package
> > "annotation".
> >
> > currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation"
> package
> > and some don't)
> > -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Porter
> http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Mark Struberg
Administrator
In reply to this post by Gerhard Petracek
yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces nowadays. So this is just superfluous.

LieGrue,
strub


----- Original Message -----

> From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
>
> hi @ all,
>
> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for all
> our
> annotations within a package.
> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains
> annotations.
> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the package
> "annotation".
>
> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation"
> package
> and some don't)
> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Cody Lerum
drop em.


On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces nowadays. So this is
> just superfluous.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> >
> > hi @ all,
> >
> > we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for all
> > our
> > annotations within a package.
> > however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains
> > annotations.
> > e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the package
> > "annotation".
> >
> > currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation"
> > package
> > and some don't)
> > -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Christian Kaltepoth
+1 for dropping


2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>

> drop em.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces nowadays. So this
> is
> > just superfluous.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> > >
> > > hi @ all,
> > >
> > > we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for all
> > > our
> > > annotations within a package.
> > > however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains
> > > annotations.
> > > e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the package
> > > "annotation".
> > >
> > > currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation"
> > > package
> > > and some don't)
> > > -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > > i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > gerhard
> > >
> >
>



--
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Pete Muir
+1 to drop, I hate them.

On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for dropping
>
>
> 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
>
>> drop em.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces nowadays. So this
>> is
>>> just superfluous.
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
>>>>
>>>> hi @ all,
>>>>
>>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for all
>>>> our
>>>> annotations within a package.
>>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains
>>>> annotations.
>>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the package
>>>> "annotation".
>>>>
>>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation"
>>>> package
>>>> and some don't)
>>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
>>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Kaltepoth
> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Cody Lerum
One small problem is the early integration of DS into JBoss Tools -
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901

I don't know how many people if any are using that integration yet.


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 to drop, I hate them.
>
> On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for dropping
> >
> >
> > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> drop em.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces nowadays. So this
> >> is
> >>> just superfluous.
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> >>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>> Cc:
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> >>>>
> >>>> hi @ all,
> >>>>
> >>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for all
> >>>> our
> >>>> annotations within a package.
> >>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just contains
> >>>> annotations.
> >>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the package
> >>>> "annotation".
> >>>>
> >>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation"
> >>>> package
> >>>> and some don't)
> >>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> >>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
> >>>>
> >>>> regards,
> >>>> gerhard
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christian Kaltepoth
> > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Romain Manni-Bucau
Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some instability is fine IMHO
Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> One small problem is the early integration of DS into JBoss Tools -
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
>
> I don't know how many people if any are using that integration yet.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> >
> > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for dropping
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> > >
> > >> drop em.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces nowadays. So
> this
> > >> is
> > >>> just superfluous.
> > >>>
> > >>> LieGrue,
> > >>> strub
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> > >>>> To: [hidden email]
> > >>>> Cc:
> > >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> > >>>>
> > >>>> hi @ all,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for
> all
> > >>>> our
> > >>>> annotations within a package.
> > >>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just
> contains
> > >>>> annotations.
> > >>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the
> package
> > >>>> "annotation".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation"
> > >>>> package
> > >>>> and some don't)
> > >>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > >>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> regards,
> > >>>> gerhard
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christian Kaltepoth
> > > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Gerhard Petracek
Administrator
that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike is a tlp).
(it was one of our first agreements.)

regards,
gerhard



2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>

> Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some instability is fine IMHO
> Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> > One small problem is the early integration of DS into JBoss Tools -
> > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
> >
> > I don't know how many people if any are using that integration yet.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> > >
> > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for dropping
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> > > >
> > > >> drop em.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces nowadays. So
> > this
> > > >> is
> > > >>> just superfluous.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> LieGrue,
> > > >>> strub
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> > > >>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > >>>> Cc:
> > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> hi @ all,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation" for
> > all
> > > >>>> our
> > > >>>> annotations within a package.
> > > >>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just
> > contains
> > > >>>> annotations.
> > > >>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the
> > package
> > > >>>> "annotation".
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the "annotation"
> > > >>>> package
> > > >>>> and some don't)
> > > >>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > > >>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> regards,
> > > >>>> gerhard
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christian Kaltepoth
> > > > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

john.d.ament
Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking integrations.


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike is a tlp).
> (it was one of our first agreements.)
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
>
> > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some instability is fine IMHO
> > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> > > One small problem is the early integration of DS into JBoss Tools -
> > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
> > >
> > > I don't know how many people if any are using that integration yet.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> > > >
> > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for dropping
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> > > > >
> > > > >> drop em.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces nowadays.
> So
> > > this
> > > > >> is
> > > > >>> just superfluous.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> LieGrue,
> > > > >>> strub
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> > > > >>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > >>>> Cc:
> > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> hi @ all,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation"
> for
> > > all
> > > > >>>> our
> > > > >>>> annotations within a package.
> > > > >>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just
> > > contains
> > > > >>>> annotations.
> > > > >>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the
> > > package
> > > > >>>> "annotation".
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the
> "annotation"
> > > > >>>> package
> > > > >>>> and some don't)
> > > > >>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > > > >>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the "annotation"-package/s.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> regards,
> > > > >>>> gerhard
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
> > > > > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Romain Manni-Bucau
+1 after first tlp release to be exact
Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking integrations.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> [hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike is a tlp).
> > (it was one of our first agreements.)
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> >
> > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some instability is fine IMHO
> > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > One small problem is the early integration of DS into JBoss Tools -
> > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
> > > >
> > > > I don't know how many people if any are using that integration yet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for dropping
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> drop em.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces nowadays.
> > So
> > > > this
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >>> just superfluous.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> LieGrue,
> > > > > >>> strub
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>> Cc:
> > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> hi @ all,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named "annotation"
> > for
> > > > all
> > > > > >>>> our
> > > > > >>>> annotations within a package.
> > > > > >>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just
> > > > contains
> > > > > >>>> annotations.
> > > > > >>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains the
> > > > package
> > > > > >>>> "annotation".
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the
> > "annotation"
> > > > > >>>> package
> > > > > >>>> and some don't)
> > > > > >>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > > > > >>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the
> "annotation"-package/s.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> regards,
> > > > > >>>> gerhard
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
> > > > > > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

john.d.ament
If that's the case, we should target it for 0.4 and forward.


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>wrote:

> +1 after first tlp release to be exact
> Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> > Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking integrations.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> > [hidden email]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike is a tlp).
> > > (it was one of our first agreements.)
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > gerhard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> > >
> > > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some instability is fine
> IMHO
> > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > One small problem is the early integration of DS into JBoss Tools -
> > > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know how many people if any are using that integration yet.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete Muir <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 for dropping
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> drop em.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces
> nowadays.
> > > So
> > > > > this
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >>> just superfluous.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> LieGrue,
> > > > > > >>> strub
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>> Cc:
> > > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> hi @ all,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named
> "annotation"
> > > for
> > > > > all
> > > > > > >>>> our
> > > > > > >>>> annotations within a package.
> > > > > > >>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently) just
> > > > > contains
> > > > > > >>>> annotations.
> > > > > > >>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains
> the
> > > > > package
> > > > > > >>>> "annotation".
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the
> > > "annotation"
> > > > > > >>>> package
> > > > > > >>>> and some don't)
> > > > > > >>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > > > > > >>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the
> > "annotation"-package/s.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> regards,
> > > > > > >>>> gerhard
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
> > > > > > > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > > > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > > > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Cody Lerum
Works for me. I was only using @Excludes and I can just switch to @Typed()


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>wrote:

> If that's the case, we should target it for 0.4 and forward.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > +1 after first tlp release to be exact
> > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> > > Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking integrations.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike is a tlp).
> > > > (it was one of our first agreements.)
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > gerhard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> > > >
> > > > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some instability is fine
> > IMHO
> > > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" <[hidden email]> a écrit
> :
> > > > >
> > > > > > One small problem is the early integration of DS into JBoss
> Tools -
> > > > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know how many people if any are using that integration
> yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete Muir <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 for dropping
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> drop em.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces
> > nowadays.
> > > > So
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > >>> just superfluous.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> LieGrue,
> > > > > > > >>> strub
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >>>> Cc:
> > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > > > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> hi @ all,
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named
> > "annotation"
> > > > for
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >>>> our
> > > > > > > >>>> annotations within a package.
> > > > > > > >>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently)
> just
> > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > >>>> annotations.
> > > > > > > >>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only contains
> > the
> > > > > > package
> > > > > > > >>>> "annotation".
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the
> > > > "annotation"
> > > > > > > >>>> package
> > > > > > > >>>> and some don't)
> > > > > > > >>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > > > > > > >>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the
> > > "annotation"-package/s.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> regards,
> > > > > > > >>>> gerhard
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
> > > > > > > > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > > > > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > > > > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Matt Benson
I would agree with Gerhard that TLP and 1.0 are not necessarily linked
concepts.  I would think most developers would not be surprised by the idea
that any release number < 1.0 is not guaranteed not to change.

Matt


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Cody Lerum <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Works for me. I was only using @Excludes and I can just switch to @Typed()
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > If that's the case, we should target it for 0.4 and forward.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > +1 after first tlp release to be exact
> > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
> > >
> > > > Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking integrations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike is a tlp).
> > > > > (it was one of our first agreements.)
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > > gerhard
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some instability is fine
> > > IMHO
> > > > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" <[hidden email]> a
> écrit
> > :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > One small problem is the early integration of DS into JBoss
> > Tools -
> > > > > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know how many people if any are using that integration
> > yet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete Muir <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 for dropping
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> drop em.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces
> > > nowadays.
> > > > > So
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >>> just superfluous.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> LieGrue,
> > > > > > > > >>> strub
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > >>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >>>> Cc:
> > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> hi @ all,
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named
> > > "annotation"
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >>>> our
> > > > > > > > >>>> annotations within a package.
> > > > > > > > >>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package (currently)
> > just
> > > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > >>>> annotations.
> > > > > > > > >>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only
> contains
> > > the
> > > > > > > package
> > > > > > > > >>>> "annotation".
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the
> > > > > "annotation"
> > > > > > > > >>>> package
> > > > > > > > >>>> and some don't)
> > > > > > > > >>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > > > > > > > >>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the
> > > > "annotation"-package/s.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> regards,
> > > > > > > > >>>> gerhard
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
> > > > > > > > > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > > > > > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > > > > > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Romain Manni-Bucau
I dont fully agree even if i get you. For a bunch of people tlp = maturity
= stability
Le 2 avr. 2013 21:47, "Matt Benson" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> I would agree with Gerhard that TLP and 1.0 are not necessarily linked
> concepts.  I would think most developers would not be surprised by the idea
> that any release number < 1.0 is not guaranteed not to change.
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Cody Lerum <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Works for me. I was only using @Excludes and I can just switch to
> @Typed()
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > If that's the case, we should target it for 0.4 and forward.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 after first tlp release to be exact
> > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking integrations.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike is a tlp).
> > > > > > (it was one of our first agreements.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > gerhard
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some instability is
> fine
> > > > IMHO
> > > > > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum" <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit
> > > :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One small problem is the early integration of DS into JBoss
> > > Tools -
> > > > > > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't know how many people if any are using that
> integration
> > > yet.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete Muir <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian Kaltepoth <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 for dropping
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> drop em.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> yes, let's drop them. annotations are like interfaces
> > > > nowadays.
> > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > >>> just superfluous.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> LieGrue,
> > > > > > > > > >>> strub
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Cc:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> hi @ all,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> we had an agreement to use a (sub-)package named
> > > > "annotation"
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >>>> our
> > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations within a package.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> however, it feels a bit clumsy if a package
> (currently)
> > > just
> > > > > > > > contains
> > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> e.g. org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only
> > contains
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > package
> > > > > > > > > >>>> "annotation".
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> currently we have a mixture (some parts are using the
> > > > > > "annotation"
> > > > > > > > > >>>> package
> > > > > > > > > >>>> and some don't)
> > > > > > > > > >>>> -> we have to align it the one way or the other.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> i'm currently in favour of dropping the
> > > > > "annotation"-package/s.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> regards,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> gerhard
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
> > > > > > > > > > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > > > > > > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > > > > > > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Mark Struberg
Administrator
nope, TLP only means maturity on the social/community side.

For any users it's just a matter of 2 minutes doing a search/replace on the imports and then rebuild their app.
That's nothing which we cannot do easily.


LieGrue,
strub



----- Original Message -----

> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
>
> I dont fully agree even if i get you. For a bunch of people tlp = maturity
> = stability
> Le 2 avr. 2013 21:47, "Matt Benson" <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
>
>>  I would agree with Gerhard that TLP and 1.0 are not necessarily linked
>>  concepts.  I would think most developers would not be surprised by the idea
>>  that any release number < 1.0 is not guaranteed not to change.
>>
>>  Matt
>>
>>
>>  On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>>  > Works for me. I was only using @Excludes and I can just switch to
>>  @Typed()
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John D. Ament
> <[hidden email]
>>  > >wrote:
>>  >
>>  > > If that's the case, we should target it for 0.4 and forward.
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>  > [hidden email]
>>  > > >wrote:
>>  > >
>>  > > > +1 after first tlp release to be exact
>>  > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament"
> <[hidden email]> a
>>  > écrit :
>>  > > >
>>  > > > > Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking
> integrations.
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
>>  > > > > [hidden email]
>>  > > > > > wrote:
>>  > > > >
>>  > > > > > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike
> is a tlp).
>>  > > > > > (it was one of our first agreements.)
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > > > regards,
>>  > > > > > gerhard
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > > > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau
> <[hidden email]>
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some
> instability is
>>  fine
>>  > > > IMHO
>>  > > > > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum"
> <[hidden email]> a
>>  > écrit
>>  > > :
>>  > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > One small problem is the early
> integration of DS into JBoss
>>  > > Tools -
>>  > > > > > > >
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
>>  > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > I don't know how many people if any
> are using that
>>  integration
>>  > > yet.
>>  > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete
> Muir <[hidden email]>
>>  > > > wrote:
>>  > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
>>  > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian
> Kaltepoth <
>>  > > > > [hidden email]
>>  > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>  > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > > +1 for dropping
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum
> <[hidden email]>
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > >> drop em.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>
>>  > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at
> 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
>>  > > > > > [hidden email]>
>>  > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>  > > > > > > > > >>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>> yes, let's drop
> them. annotations are like interfaces
>>  > > > nowadays.
>>  > > > > > So
>>  > > > > > > > this
>>  > > > > > > > > >> is
>>  > > > > > > > > >>> just superfluous.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>> LieGrue,
>>  > > > > > > > > >>> strub
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message
> -----
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard
> Petracek <[hidden email]>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> To:
> [hidden email]
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Cc:
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday,
> March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS]
> re-visit "annotation" package/s
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> hi @ all,
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> we had an
> agreement to use a (sub-)package named
>>  > > > "annotation"
>>  > > > > > for
>>  > > > > > > > all
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> our
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations within
> a package.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> however, it feels
> a bit clumsy if a package
>>  (currently)
>>  > > just
>>  > > > > > > > contains
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> e.g.
> org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only
>>  > contains
>>  > > > the
>>  > > > > > > > package
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> "annotation".
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> currently we have
> a mixture (some parts are using the
>>  > > > > > "annotation"
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> package
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> and some
> don't)
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> -> we have to
> align it the one way or the other.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> i'm currently
> in favour of dropping the
>>  > > > > "annotation"-package/s.
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> regards,
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>> gerhard
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>>
>>  > > > > > > > > >>
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > > > --
>>  > > > > > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
>>  > > > > > > > > > Blog:
> http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
>>  > > > > > > > > > Twitter:
> http://twitter.com/chkal
>>  > > > > > > > > > GitHub:
> https://github.com/chkal
>>  > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > > >
>>  > > > > > >
>>  > > > > >
>>  > > > >
>>  > > >
>>  > >
>>  >
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Romain Manni-Bucau
Right but not for users ;)

In all case we can get it for 0.4 no? So no real issue
Le 2 avr. 2013 22:56, "Mark Struberg" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> nope, TLP only means maturity on the social/community side.
>
> For any users it's just a matter of 2 minutes doing a search/replace on
> the imports and then rebuild their app.
> That's nothing which we cannot do easily.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> > To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> >
> > I dont fully agree even if i get you. For a bunch of people tlp =
> maturity
> > = stability
> > Le 2 avr. 2013 21:47, "Matt Benson" <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> >
> >>  I would agree with Gerhard that TLP and 1.0 are not necessarily linked
> >>  concepts.  I would think most developers would not be surprised by the
> idea
> >>  that any release number < 1.0 is not guaranteed not to change.
> >>
> >>  Matt
> >>
> >>
> >>  On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>  > Works for me. I was only using @Excludes and I can just switch to
> >>  @Typed()
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John D. Ament
> > <[hidden email]
> >>  > >wrote:
> >>  >
> >>  > > If that's the case, we should target it for 0.4 and forward.
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>  > [hidden email]
> >>  > > >wrote:
> >>  > >
> >>  > > > +1 after first tlp release to be exact
> >>  > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament"
> > <[hidden email]> a
> >>  > écrit :
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > > Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking
> > integrations.
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> >>  > > > > [hidden email]
> >>  > > > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike
> > is a tlp).
> >>  > > > > > (it was one of our first agreements.)
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > regards,
> >>  > > > > > gerhard
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau
> > <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some
> > instability is
> >>  fine
> >>  > > > IMHO
> >>  > > > > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum"
> > <[hidden email]> a
> >>  > écrit
> >>  > > :
> >>  > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > One small problem is the early
> > integration of DS into JBoss
> >>  > > Tools -
> >>  > > > > > > >
> > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > I don't know how many people if any
> > are using that
> >>  integration
> >>  > > yet.
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete
> > Muir <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian
> > Kaltepoth <
> >>  > > > > [hidden email]
> >>  > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > > +1 for dropping
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum
> > <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >> drop em.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at
> > 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
> >>  > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> yes, let's drop
> > them. annotations are like interfaces
> >>  > > > nowadays.
> >>  > > > > > So
> >>  > > > > > > > this
> >>  > > > > > > > > >> is
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> just superfluous.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> LieGrue,
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> strub
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message
> > -----
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard
> > Petracek <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> To:
> > [hidden email]
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Cc:
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday,
> > March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS]
> > re-visit "annotation" package/s
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> hi @ all,
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> we had an
> > agreement to use a (sub-)package named
> >>  > > > "annotation"
> >>  > > > > > for
> >>  > > > > > > > all
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> our
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations within
> > a package.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> however, it feels
> > a bit clumsy if a package
> >>  (currently)
> >>  > > just
> >>  > > > > > > > contains
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> e.g.
> > org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only
> >>  > contains
> >>  > > > the
> >>  > > > > > > > package
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > "annotation".
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> currently we have
> > a mixture (some parts are using the
> >>  > > > > > "annotation"
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> package
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> and some
> > don't)
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> -> we have to
> > align it the one way or the other.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> i'm currently
> > in favour of dropping the
> >>  > > > > "annotation"-package/s.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> regards,
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> gerhard
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > > --
> >>  > > > > > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
> >>  > > > > > > > > > Blog:
> > http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> >>  > > > > > > > > > Twitter:
> > http://twitter.com/chkal
> >>  > > > > > > > > > GitHub:
> > https://github.com/chkal
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > >
> >>  > >
> >>  >
> >>
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

Jason Porter
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
We understand what it means, but many out in the wild don't understand
that, and I think Romain is correct that many view it as "oh, this is
stable and production ready now."


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> nope, TLP only means maturity on the social/community side.
>
> For any users it's just a matter of 2 minutes doing a search/replace on
> the imports and then rebuild their app.
> That's nothing which we cannot do easily.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> > To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> >
> > I dont fully agree even if i get you. For a bunch of people tlp =
> maturity
> > = stability
> > Le 2 avr. 2013 21:47, "Matt Benson" <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> >
> >>  I would agree with Gerhard that TLP and 1.0 are not necessarily linked
> >>  concepts.  I would think most developers would not be surprised by the
> idea
> >>  that any release number < 1.0 is not guaranteed not to change.
> >>
> >>  Matt
> >>
> >>
> >>  On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>  > Works for me. I was only using @Excludes and I can just switch to
> >>  @Typed()
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John D. Ament
> > <[hidden email]
> >>  > >wrote:
> >>  >
> >>  > > If that's the case, we should target it for 0.4 and forward.
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>  > [hidden email]
> >>  > > >wrote:
> >>  > >
> >>  > > > +1 after first tlp release to be exact
> >>  > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament"
> > <[hidden email]> a
> >>  > écrit :
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > > Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking
> > integrations.
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> >>  > > > > [hidden email]
> >>  > > > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike
> > is a tlp).
> >>  > > > > > (it was one of our first agreements.)
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > regards,
> >>  > > > > > gerhard
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau
> > <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some
> > instability is
> >>  fine
> >>  > > > IMHO
> >>  > > > > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum"
> > <[hidden email]> a
> >>  > écrit
> >>  > > :
> >>  > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > One small problem is the early
> > integration of DS into JBoss
> >>  > > Tools -
> >>  > > > > > > >
> > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > I don't know how many people if any
> > are using that
> >>  integration
> >>  > > yet.
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete
> > Muir <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian
> > Kaltepoth <
> >>  > > > > [hidden email]
> >>  > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > > +1 for dropping
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum
> > <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >> drop em.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at
> > 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
> >>  > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> yes, let's drop
> > them. annotations are like interfaces
> >>  > > > nowadays.
> >>  > > > > > So
> >>  > > > > > > > this
> >>  > > > > > > > > >> is
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> just superfluous.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> LieGrue,
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> strub
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message
> > -----
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard
> > Petracek <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> To:
> > [hidden email]
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Cc:
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday,
> > March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS]
> > re-visit "annotation" package/s
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> hi @ all,
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> we had an
> > agreement to use a (sub-)package named
> >>  > > > "annotation"
> >>  > > > > > for
> >>  > > > > > > > all
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> our
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations within
> > a package.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> however, it feels
> > a bit clumsy if a package
> >>  (currently)
> >>  > > just
> >>  > > > > > > > contains
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> e.g.
> > org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only
> >>  > contains
> >>  > > > the
> >>  > > > > > > > package
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > "annotation".
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> currently we have
> > a mixture (some parts are using the
> >>  > > > > > "annotation"
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> package
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> and some
> > don't)
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> -> we have to
> > align it the one way or the other.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> i'm currently
> > in favour of dropping the
> >>  > > > > "annotation"-package/s.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> regards,
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> gerhard
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > > --
> >>  > > > > > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
> >>  > > > > > > > > > Blog:
> > http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> >>  > > > > > > > > > Twitter:
> > http://twitter.com/chkal
> >>  > > > > > > > > > GitHub:
> > https://github.com/chkal
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > >
> >>  > >
> >>  >
> >>
> >
>



--
Jason Porter
http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s

john.d.ament
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
Mark,

In this case it's about the related tooling that broke.  Until JBIDE fixes
this, users will end up with the wrong annotations in their code.

IMHO, I'm not saying no we can't change things like this, but if we do
change them and there are known downstream impacts for tools that support
DS we should let those tools know what we are doing before we make the
change.

John


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> nope, TLP only means maturity on the social/community side.
>
> For any users it's just a matter of 2 minutes doing a search/replace on
> the imports and then rebuild their app.
> That's nothing which we cannot do easily.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
> > To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] re-visit "annotation" package/s
> >
> > I dont fully agree even if i get you. For a bunch of people tlp =
> maturity
> > = stability
> > Le 2 avr. 2013 21:47, "Matt Benson" <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> >
> >>  I would agree with Gerhard that TLP and 1.0 are not necessarily linked
> >>  concepts.  I would think most developers would not be surprised by the
> idea
> >>  that any release number < 1.0 is not guaranteed not to change.
> >>
> >>  Matt
> >>
> >>
> >>  On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Cody Lerum <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>  > Works for me. I was only using @Excludes and I can just switch to
> >>  @Typed()
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, John D. Ament
> > <[hidden email]
> >>  > >wrote:
> >>  >
> >>  > > If that's the case, we should target it for 0.4 and forward.
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>  > [hidden email]
> >>  > > >wrote:
> >>  > >
> >>  > > > +1 after first tlp release to be exact
> >>  > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:38, "John D. Ament"
> > <[hidden email]> a
> >>  > écrit :
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > > Once DS is a TLP, we should try avoiding breaking
> > integrations.
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> >>  > > > > [hidden email]
> >>  > > > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > > that can happen until v1 (and not until deltaspike
> > is a tlp).
> >>  > > > > > (it was one of our first agreements.)
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > regards,
> >>  > > > > > gerhard
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > 2013/4/2 Romain Manni-Bucau
> > <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > Think people know ds is not yet a tlp so some
> > instability is
> >>  fine
> >>  > > > IMHO
> >>  > > > > > > Le 2 avr. 2013 20:00, "Cody Lerum"
> > <[hidden email]> a
> >>  > écrit
> >>  > > :
> >>  > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > One small problem is the early
> > integration of DS into JBoss
> >>  > > Tools -
> >>  > > > > > > >
> > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-13901
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > I don't know how many people if any
> > are using that
> >>  integration
> >>  > > yet.
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Pete
> > Muir <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > +1 to drop, I hate them.
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 10:06, Christian
> > Kaltepoth <
> >>  > > > > [hidden email]
> >>  > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > > +1 for dropping
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/31 Cody Lerum
> > <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >> drop em.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at
> > 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg <
> >>  > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> yes, let's drop
> > them. annotations are like interfaces
> >>  > > > nowadays.
> >>  > > > > > So
> >>  > > > > > > > this
> >>  > > > > > > > > >> is
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> just superfluous.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> LieGrue,
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> strub
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message
> > -----
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> From: Gerhard
> > Petracek <[hidden email]>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> To:
> > [hidden email]
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Cc:
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday,
> > March 31, 2013 5:30 PM
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS]
> > re-visit "annotation" package/s
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> hi @ all,
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> we had an
> > agreement to use a (sub-)package named
> >>  > > > "annotation"
> >>  > > > > > for
> >>  > > > > > > > all
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> our
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations within
> > a package.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> however, it feels
> > a bit clumsy if a package
> >>  (currently)
> >>  > > just
> >>  > > > > > > > contains
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> annotations.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> e.g.
> > org.apache.deltaspike.core.api.exclude only
> >>  > contains
> >>  > > > the
> >>  > > > > > > > package
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > "annotation".
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> currently we have
> > a mixture (some parts are using the
> >>  > > > > > "annotation"
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> package
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> and some
> > don't)
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> -> we have to
> > align it the one way or the other.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> i'm currently
> > in favour of dropping the
> >>  > > > > "annotation"-package/s.
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> regards,
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>> gerhard
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >>
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > > > --
> >>  > > > > > > > > > Christian Kaltepoth
> >>  > > > > > > > > > Blog:
> > http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> >>  > > > > > > > > > Twitter:
> > http://twitter.com/chkal
> >>  > > > > > > > > > GitHub:
> > https://github.com/chkal
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > >
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > >
> >>  > >
> >>  >
> >>
> >
>
12