record components as a first class reflection element

[Vicente Romero]

On 9/24/19 4:07 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> Question - should RecordComponent extend java.lang.reflect.Member 
> (after all, it has a name and a type). Not 100% sure.

good question, I would say yes, we can say that record components are 
members of the class, but I'm not 100% sure either

>
> Maurizio

Vicente
>
> On 24/09/2019 20:33, Alex Buckley wrote:
>> At first glance, this is sensible because of the first-class status 
>> in the JLS of record components and their mapping to accessors.
>>
>> Based on a check of other implementations of AnnotatedElement, 
>> consider `boolean isVarArgs()` (IIRC a varargs component will be 
>> allowed) and `String toGenericString()`.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On 9/24/2019 12:05 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
>>> Hi amber experts,
>>>
>>> We are considering our next move in the reflection area for records. 
>>> It will be hoisting record components to a first class status in the 
>>> reflection engine. Our current proposal is to define a new class 
>>> named: java.lang.reflect.RecordComponent which will will be roughly 
>>> defined as:
>>>
>>> public final class RecordComponent implements AnnotatedElement {
>>>      private String name;
>>>      private Class<?> type;
>>>      private Method accessor;
>>>
>>>      public String getName() { return name; }
>>>
>>>      public Class<?> getType() { return type; }
>>>
>>>      public Type getGenericType() {...}
>>>
>>>      public AnnotatedType getAnnotatedType() {....}
>>>
>>>      public Method getAccessor() { return accessor; }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Along with this change we are also proposing changes to 
>>> java.lang.Class. Our proposal there is to remove current method: 
>>> java.lang.Class::getRecordAccessors and add a new method named: 
>>> java.lang.Class::getRecordComponents which will return a array of 
>>> java.lang.reflect.RecordComponents. Thanks in advance for sharing 
>>> any feedback on this proposal,
>>>
>>> Vicente