On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:33 AM Ben Weidig <b...@netzgut.net> wrote: > Hi,
Hi! > > It won't be backward compatible, but on the other hand it's just one > annotation, > > it's very new and I suppose there aren't many people using it, > > if any (except my day job, which uses it in a handful of places). > > I'm using it, too! > It really helps replacing some older stuff that needs to be extended > without breaking everything else. Oh, nice! > But how do you deal with @InjectComponent in base classes? > Maybe a boolean "allowMissing() default false" could be added to > @InjectComponent, I really like this idea. > or @DisableStrictChecks could also target fields. Hmm, I'm not sure I like this one. I really prefer adding something to @InjectComponent like you suggested. > I digress, that's another discussion. > > Moving just @DisableStrictChecks annotation to > org.apache.tapestry5.*core*.annotations would still split the annotations Well, it would in the sense of not having all annotations in a single package, but we already don't have that, so I think this wouldn't be a problem. Also, it's not a split in the Java module split package sense, since it wouldn't be a package that appears in more than one JAR. > because all other core annotations are in org.apache.tapestry5.annotations. Oh, I should have thought of this before: since @DisableStrictChecks is in org.apache.tapestry5.annotations, but in tapestry-core, we can just move it to the same package in tapestry5-annotations. No backward-incompatible changes. Win-win! Other tapestry-core annotations like @InjectComponents are already there, so there's no need to create a org.apache.tapestry5.*core*.annotations package. Cheers! -- Thiago --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
