For people looking for an example solution, this is what we ended up doing
in Hibernate projects after we had shared these pain points in February:
add an explicit dependency to the Maven artifact
`javax.annotation:jsr250-api:1.0`.
We use an explicit phase for running annotation processors via the
This one?
http://download.java.net/java/jdk9/docs/api/javax/annotation/processing/Generated.html
/Michael
On Sep 20, 2017 18:44, "Stephen Colebourne" wrote:
> As per this email:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2017-
> February/011365.html
> the idea was to add a new annotat
On 20 September 2017 at 14:22, Alan Bateman wrote:
> That was the original suggestion but that package is more for annotations
> types that are used as meta annotations (@Native should have gone elsewhere
> but we can't change that now).
A point acknowledged by
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/piperm
On 20/09/2017 13:58, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Ouch. Thats an unpleasant result. It should have gone in `java.lang.annotation`.
Stephen
That was the original suggestion but that package is more for
annotations types that are used as meta annotations (@Native should have
gone elsewhere but we c
And just noting that the thread in March did not call out the fact
that the webrev did not correspond to the original agreed change from
Mark/jigsaw-dev. The only way you'd have spotted the package was
javax.annotation.processing and not java.lang.annotation is by
clicking on the webrev itself. Sor
And possibly have retention "class"
On Sep 20, 2017 14:59, "Stephen Colebourne" wrote:
> Ouch. Thats an unpleasant result. It should have gone in
> `java.lang.annotation`.
> Stephen
>
> On 20 September 2017 at 13:49, Alan Bateman
> wrote:
> > On 20/09/2017 13:43, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >>
Ouch. Thats an unpleasant result. It should have gone in `java.lang.annotation`.
Stephen
On 20 September 2017 at 13:49, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 20/09/2017 13:43, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>> As per this email:
>>
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2017-February/011365.html
>
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 20/09/2017 13:43, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>> As per this email:
>>
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2017-February/011365.html
>> the idea was to add a new annotation `java.lang.annotation.Generated`
>> to replace th
On 20/09/2017 13:43, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
As per this email:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2017-February/011365.html
the idea was to add a new annotation `java.lang.annotation.Generated`
to replace the old problematic one.
Is it my imagination, or did this get forgotte
