Re: Split package caused by DisableStrictChecks

Hi Volker,

I'm not that versed in the Java module system, but as far as I understand,
the problem lies in using the same package
"org.apache.tapestry5.annotations" in tapestry-core and
tapestry-annotations?

* Moving @DisableStrictChecks to tapestry-core: As you wrote already, this
should be the least intrusive option. tapestry-core already has its
annotations in the package, and only a single class has to be moved without
any migration needed.

* Moving tapestry-core annotations to tapestry5-annotations: That might
makes sense from an organizational point of view.
But tapestry-annotation would need a .core.* package, maximizing the
migration effort. Leaving out the core-intermediate package wouldn't
require migration but would weaken the overall structure.

Both options have a certain appeal.

Moving a single file to its brethren in tapestry-core is the most
straightforward fix for the split package issue, and using an annotation
that is only available through the tapestry-ioc dependency if I read the
build.gradle correctly.
But being able to use tapestry-core annotations without including
tapestry-core itself might have advantages, too.

I think I'd prefer moving all annotations to tapestry5-annotations (without
an additional core package to minimize the migration effort) and including
tapestry5-annotations as a direct dependency.
That way, the org.apache.tapestry5.annotations package exists only in a
single project.

But I wouldn't be against just moving @DisableStrictChecks to
tapestry-core, either.

Cheers
Ben

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 5:44 PM Volker Lamp <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello, Tapestry developers,
>
> The @DisableStrictChecks annotation
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-2655) causes a split package
> (in terms of Java 9 modules) with tapestry-core.
>
> In my opinion, the best fix is to move it into tapestry-core. While the
> jar would change, the package would stay the same, causing fewer to no
> migration issues - hopefully.
>
> Keeping it in tapestry5-annotations would imply moving it to another
> package, definitely causing some sort of migration efforts.
>
> Keen to hear your thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Volker
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>