Interesting point, Sebb.
I wasn't clear why the annotations were being used in our codebase actually.
That makes a lot of sense why they would be fair game to remove.
Thanks!
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> As I recall, the annotations were intended as documentation for the
> clas
As I recall, the annotations were intended as documentation for the
classes, and had class retention.
So I'm not sure how this can affect 3rd party code at runtime.
On 9 March 2017 at 16:07, larry mccay wrote:
> Hi HC devs -
>
> Do I understand correctly that the annotations were removed in 4.5.
Hi Larry,
The removal of the annotations was likely a licensing issue.
Gary
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:07 AM, larry mccay wrote:
> Hi HC devs -
>
> Do I understand correctly that the annotations were removed in 4.5.3 in an
> incompatible way?
> Maybe I am missing something but breaking the code
Hi HC devs -
Do I understand correctly that the annotations were removed in 4.5.3 in an
incompatible way?
Maybe I am missing something but breaking the code of existing consumers in
a dot release is bad practice.
We needed to upgrade to 4.5.3 in order to get the SSL+SPNEGO fix that broke
us with
