Document deprecation of Language.SCRIPT

[anukalp2804]

Summary

Improves documentation for the deprecated Language.SCRIPT constant.

Motivation

Language.SCRIPT is deprecated but lacked structured deprecation metadata.
This change clarifies the rationale, adds since information, and documents
the recommended replacement.

Changes

• Added deprecation rationale to Javadoc
• Added @Deprecated(since = "4.0.0-alpha", forRemoval = false)
• No behavioral or compatibility changes

Following this checklist to help us incorporate your
contribution quickly and easily:

• Your pull request should address just one issue, without pulling in other changes.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
  Note that commits might be squashed by a maintainer on merge.
• Write unit tests that match behavioral changes, where the tests fail if the changes to the runtime are not applied.
  This may not always be possible but is a best-practice.
• Run mvn verify to make sure basic checks pass.
  A more thorough check will be performed on your pull request automatically.
• You have run the Core IT successfully.

If your pull request is about ~20 lines of code you don't need to sign an
Individual Contributor License Agreement if you are unsure
please ask on the developers list.

To make clear that you license your contribution under
the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
you have to acknowledge this by using the following check-box.

• I hereby declare this contribution to be licenced under the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
• In any other case, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

Note: This change is documentation-only and does not affect runtime behavior.

[anukalp2804]

Gentle ping 🙂
Just checking whether this PR needs anything further from my side.
Happy to update it if needed. Thanks!

[anukalp2804]

Just checking in on this PR. It has been idle for a while and is still awaiting workflow approval and review.

[anukalp2804]

Fixed — replaced the plain @deprecated with @deprecated(since = "4.0.0").

[elharo]

This needs to answer the question of what someone should do instead.

[anukalp2804]

Updated the deprecation documentation to remove the alpha reference and use a stable 4.0.0 version, while explicitly documenting RESOURCES as the replacement. Please let me know if this now matches expectations.

[elharo]

Why do you think RESOURCES is the replacement?

[anukalp2804]

The intent was to document RESOURCES as the replacement because SCRIPT was historically used for non-Java content in Maven 3, and in Maven 4 such content is handled under the resources language model.

If that assumption is incorrect, I’m happy to update the documentation to point to the correct replacement (or remove the replacement reference entirely if there is no direct equivalent).

[desruisseaux]

Yes, my understanding is that since script are just source files copied verbatim, they can be handled as ordinary resources. The new <source> element has no <lang> value specifically for scripts.

[elharo]

so should it be RESOURCES or should it simply be removed?

[desruisseaux]

I think that we can keep RESOURCES. Developers who were used to bundle scripts in their application would need to handle them as resources instead.

[anukalp2804]

Based on the discussion, I’m comfortable with either approach.

My initial intent in mentioning RESOURCES was to give users a concrete direction, since scripts are effectively treated as ordinary resources in Maven 4. However, if you prefer to avoid naming a replacement where there is no dedicated script language, I can remove the replacement reference and keep the deprecation notice minimal.

Please let me know which you’d prefer, and I’ll update the PR accordingly.

[desruisseaux]

I think that redirecting users to RESOURCES is fine.

[anukalp2804]

Good point — I’ve removed the paragraph separator and kept the Javadoc more compact. Thanks for the suggestion.

[desruisseaux]

I think that we can merge? Are we waiting for something else?

addressed

[elharo]

The class level javadoc comment is incon\sistent with thsis code.

[anukalp2804]

Thanks for pointing this out. I’ve aligned the class-level Javadoc with the current code so it is now consistent. Please let me know if it looks correct now.

[desruisseaux]

The use of {@code} here is inconsistent with the javadoc of other fields.

[anukalp2804]

Removed the {@code} usage and aligned the wording with the style used by other language constants.

[github-actions]

@elharo Please assign appropriate label to PR according to the type of change.