Lloyd L Chambers wrote:
> We can always make it required, and make it optional later, but making
> it optional then required is harder since it might require code changes
> to those using it.
My personal opinion is that requiring code changes for something like
this is fine up until the beta release. By then we ought to nail this
down and try hard to avoid the need for such changes.
> It's true that conflicts have to be handled, but my suspicion is that
> forcing someone to choose a name might help reduce the number of such
> conflicts, and tie into a "best practice" which we javadoc as part of
> the annotation.
Again, it depends on the use cases. If 80% of the use cases will never
have a conflict, I don't think I would require choosing a name.