#9179 - allow selecting jakarta/javax Generated annotation #10786
Conversation
|
Dear Maintainers and gRPC/java communities "At least 1 approving review is required by reviewers with write access. " (sad_trombone.wav) cc: #9179 - this is a green checkmark addressing a concern in that issue. |
|
I see based on #1621 (comment) that this project is not terminally averse to jakarta api's, but only in this instance, so maybe this increases the chances something like this will be accepted to lessen the pain while deliberation seems to continue in the linked issue. |
|
We really don't want the jakarta annotation. Based on #9179 (comment) , you could have an option |
|
Okay I'll implement that when I get home, I think that you generally need
one for Enterprise adoption, because what employers love to do is torture
programmers with static code unit test coverage checks etc. generally I
don't see what the problem is, given that you can turn it off. It's not
like I'm forcing everyone to use Jakarta. Let's get this done!
…On Fri, Feb 16, 2024, 12:32 PM Eric Anderson ***@***.***> wrote:
We really don't want the jakarta annotation. Based on #9179 (comment)
<#9179 (comment)> ,
you could have an option javax=false that just removes the annotation
without replacing it with anything. In the future, if that causes problem,
we can add a io.grpc.stub.annotations.Generated as the javax replacement.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#10786 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACECGJCXVIGICXSTHOVFOG3YT6J3FAVCNFSM6AAAAABBHOBI46VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNBYHE2TKMZWG4>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
closing in favor of #10927 and hopefully a future one to add jakarta back on there |
No description provided.