JDK 11 RFR of 8202334: Update javax.lang.model.util visitors for 11
Jonathan Gibbons
jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com
Tue May 1 20:15:19 UTC 2018
OK, for the non-white content :-) but a minor nit regarding whitespace.
Many of the affected comments are inconsistent with the use of <p> after
a blank line in the comment. Is this intentional?
See this file, as an example:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8202334.0/src/java.compiler/share/classes/javax/lang/model/util/TypeKindVisitor9.java.sdiff.html
and this extract:
34 * A visitor of types based on their {@linkplain TypeKind kind} with
35 * default behavior appropriate for source versions {@link
36 * SourceVersion#RELEASE_9 RELEASE_9} through {@link
37 * SourceVersion#RELEASE_11 RELEASE_11}.
38 *
39 * For {@linkplain
40 * TypeMirror types} <code><i>Xyz</i></code> that may have more than one
41 * kind, the <code>visit<i>Xyz</i></code> methods in this class delegate
42 * to the <code>visit<i>Xyz</i>As<i>Kind</i></code> method corresponding to the
43 * first argument's kind. The <code>visit<i>Xyz</i>As<i>Kind</i></code> methods
44 * call {@link #defaultAction defaultAction}, passing their arguments
45 * to {@code defaultAction}'s corresponding parameters.
46 *
47 * <p> Methods in this class may be overridden subject to their
48 * general contract. Note that annotating methods in concrete
49 * subclasses with {@link java.lang.Override @Override} will help
50 * ensure that methods are overridden as intended.
Note that lines 38 and 46 are blank, but 39 does not use <p> but 47 does.
-- Jon
On 4/26/18 10:50 AM, joe darcy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please review the webrev and CSR for 8202334: "Update
> javax.lang.model.util visitors for 11":
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8202334.0/
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202335
>
> From the CSR:
>
>> The `javax.lang.model` API was added in Java SE 6. In each of Java SE
>> 7, 8, and 9, new sets of utility visitors were added for each
>> release, for example starting with `AbstractElementVisitor6`, types
>> `AbstractElementVisitor7`, `AbstractElementVisitor8`,
>> `AbstractElementVisitor8` were added in SE 7 and 8, respectively.
>> Similar patterns were followed for `ElementKindVisitor6`, and the
>> rest of the utility visitors.
>>
>> In Java SE 10, there were no language changes requiring new
>> operational behavior from the root visitors. Therefore, rather than
>> introducing yet another slate of visitor classes, the 9-era visitors
>> were updated to indicate they are appropriate for 10 as well
>> (CCC-8193194).
>>
>> In the absence of language changes in 11 which would require new
>> operational behavior from the visitors, the 9-era visitors should be
>> updated to indicate they are appropriate for releases 9 through 11.
>>
>> Solution
>> --------
>> Update the specification and `SupportedSourceVersion` annotations on
>> the 9-era visitor classes to indicate they are appropriate for
>> release 11.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20180501/17d06afc/attachment.html>
More information about the compiler-dev
mailing list