JDK 11 RFR of 8202334: Update javax.lang.model.util visitors for 11

[Jonathan Gibbons]

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>