<AWT Dev> [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8066621: Suppress deprecation warnings in java.desktop module
Phil Race
philip.race at oracle.com
Mon Dec 15 19:48:37 UTC 2014
On 12/12/14 5:35 PM, joe darcy wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> On 12/12/2014 12:46 PM, Phil Race wrote:
>> Hi,
>> You did not provide a direct reference to the set of warnings that
>> were generated.
>> fortunately I found it here :-
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8066622
>
> Each "Suppress deprecations warnings in foo" bug is linked to a "Fix
> deprecation warnings in foo" bug which lists the exact warnings.
>
OK .. direct link would have helped.
>>
>> A couple of things I find 'unfortunate' are
>> 1) In order to avoid a deprecation warning on one call/line of a 100
>> line method,
>> the entire method is subject to the annotation. Eg :-
>> dev/jdk/src/java.desktop/share/classes/javax/print/ServiceUI.java:226: warning:
>> [deprecation] show() in Dialog has been deprecated
>>
>> Other deprecated uses could silently creep into such a body of code.
>
> That is true, but today deprecations warnings can (and do) creep into
> the entirely of the JDK without notice. Turning on the deprecation
> lint warning in the build will prevent that for the vast majority of
> code, which is why I want to get the remaining warning suppression
> bugs quickly pushed into JDK 9 so the build warning can be enabled.
> (This suppression effort was on hold until a small language change was
> recently implemented in JDK 9 to eliminate deprecation warnings just
> for importing a deprecated type.)
Maybe a digression, but why go to the trouble, why would one
legitimately import a
(deprecated) type and yet not use it ?
But the gist of my point is that with this approach more warnings can
still creep in.
Its unfortunate that the annotation system does not provide a way to
annotate the specific call
and so it is not apparent to the reader what its suppressing.
> For the "fix the warning" companion bug to this bug, I would recommend
> factoring out the deprecated method call into its own private method
> to limit the scope of the @SuppressWarning annotation. For this
> changeset, I didn't want to actually modify the contents or structure
> of any methods I so didn't undertake that kind of transformation.
Adding a wrapper method seems artificial.
Personally I would prefer to find a solution in the annotation system or
find a replacement or de-deprecating
as Alan suggested might work in some cases, although Stuart Marks said
RMI has the same case.
>>
>> 2) Some significant fraction of all the warnings are for getPeer() :-
>> dev/jdk/src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/Container.java:821:
>> warning: [deprecation] getPeer() in Component has been deprecated
>
> Yes, I also noticed that a sizeable percentage of the warnings were
> for uses of that one method.
>
>>
>> The issue here is that the deprecation javadoc tag is unable to
>> distinguish deprecated for
>> external usage vs legitimate internal usage.
>
> FYI, Stuart Mark / Dr. Deprecator gave an interesting talk at JavaOne
> this year covering the nuances of deprecation in the JDK:
>
> https://oracleus.activeevents.com/2014/connect/sessionDetail.ww?SESSION_ID=6377
>
>> There is no problem with code inside the desktop module
>> calling getPeer() which is defined in this same module. There may
>> not be many other APIs that
>> have this similar issue, but if there are it might be better to find
>> some way to make it clear
>> that we aren't suppressing warnings until we fix the code : rather we
>> really should not be
>> receiving a warning here anyway since there is nothing to fix.
>
> Well, the @SuppressWarnings annotation can be used to convey that
> information, perhaps supplemented by a comment or a wrapper method
> around getPeer; something like
>
> /**
> * Package-access method somewhere in java.awt
> */
> @SuppressWarnings("deprecation")
> static java.awt Component privilegeOfPeerage(java.awt Component c) {
> return c.getPeer();
> }
>
I don't think that conveys that its OK to use. It just adds work to hide
it in a different way.
>> Perhaps "Component. getPeer()"
>> could acquire an annotation like "module-nodeprecation" which
>> automatically suppresses the
>> annotation processor warnings for all such cases. If javac doesn't
>> know about modules perhaps
>> we could utilise a javac flag that's used only by the JDK build to
>> indicate that an annotation
>> like that should apply.
>
> At this point, I think that level of solution would be overkill
> (especially given the JDK's historical lack of discipline around
> deprecation warnings).
>
Well .. I think its worth more discussion than dismissing it out of hand.
>>
>> Regarding the show() case above I came across a puzzle.
>> show() is first defined on Component, as is its 'replacement'
>> setVisible(boolean).
>> It turns out that what we have in Component is
>>
>> public void setVisible(boolean b) {
>> show(b);
>> }
>>
>> @Deprecated
>> public void show(boolean b) {
>> if (b) {
>> show();
>> } else {
>> hide();
>> }
>>
>> @Deprecated
>> public void show() {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> So I am puzzled why those uses within Component aren't suppressed in
>> your webrev ?
>> Is there some automatic suppression of the warnings within the class
>> that does
>> the deprecation ?
>
> Yes, quoting from the JLS:
>
> "A Java compiler must produce a deprecation warning when a type,
> method, field, or constructor whose declaration is annotated with
> |@Deprecated| is used (overridden, invoked, or referenced by name) in
> a construct which is explicitly or implicitly declared, unless:
> * [...]
> * The use and declaration are both within the same outermost class. "
>
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se8/html/jls-9.html#jls-9.6.4.6
OK. So that's not as well known as you'd think. It stumped Stuart.
I had to 'infer' this from the observed behaviour.
At this point I'll approve the changes although I would like full
consideration
of enhancements to the APS in the future.
Also I believe this should go to client. If it gets pushed by the end of
the day
or at least no later than the end of tomorrow it should be integrated by
23rd.
-phil.
>
> Thanks for the review,
>
> -Joe
>
>> If so then perhaps the module idea above can be considered
>> an extension of this. If that isn't what's happening, then what is ?
>>
>> -phil.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/9/2014 4:41 PM, joe darcy wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> In support of JEP 212: Resolve Lint and Doclint Warnings
>>> (http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/212), which is targeted to JDK 9,
>>> please review the large but straightforward set of changes in the
>>> webrev:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8066621.0/
>>>
>>> Some background of the approach being taken to address this part of
>>> JEP 212 was discussed on core-libs:
>>>
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2014-December/030085.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Briefly, to allow the deprecation warnings to be dealt with and that
>>> sole remaining lint warning category enabled in the build, a
>>> two-step approach is being taken. The first step is to suppress the
>>> deprecation warnings and the second step is for area-experts to
>>> examine the specific uses of deprecated APIs in their code. This
>>> webrev only attempts to cover the first step.
>>>
>>> The webrev is based off of the JDK 9 "dev" forest rather than the
>>> "client" forest. Since the change only involves copyright updates
>>> and adding annotations, there would be no functional modification in
>>> the changeset. Therefore, I would strongly prefer to push these
>>> changes directly to dev rather than pushing them to client and
>>> waiting for them to propagate to dev to expedite the time when the
>>> build warning can be enabled. (If a warning is not enabled in the
>>> build, new instances of the warning tend to creep into the code base.)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/attachments/20141215/417ad43e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the awt-dev
mailing list