RFR JDK-8054304: Clarify treatment of bounds in j.l.r.Annotated{WildcardType, TypeVariable}

[Elena Votchennikova]

Hi Srikanth,

I would mention that Object is not annotated in the following statements:
- AnnotatedWildcardType.getAnnotatedUpperBounds(): "Note that if no 
upper bound is explicitly declared, the upper bound is Object."
- AnnotatedTypeVariable.getAnnotatedBounds(): "Note that if no bound is 
explicitly declared, the bound is Object."
- TypeVariable.getAnnotatedBounds(): "Note that if no upper bound is 
explicitly declared, the upper bound is Object."


Thank you,
Elena

04.06.2015 13:16, Srikanth wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please review this fix for 
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8054304
> (twin for conformance test failures: 
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8058595)
>
> JBS:
>
>     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8054304
>
> Webrev:
>
>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sadayapalam/JDK-8054304/webrev.00/
>
> CCC:
>
> http://ccc.us.oracle.com/8054304
>
> While as outlined in https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8054304, 
> the javadoc
> of several methods is adjusted, only in one case viz
>
>     AnnotatedWildcardType.getAnnotatedUpperBounds()
>
> there is a behaviour change. All other cases involve javadoc change 
> that explicitly
> spell out current & correct behaviour.
>
> The patch passes Tier 1 & Tier 2 tests for JDK (i.e identical results 
> with and without)
>
> Our plan is to fix this for JDK9 and backport to 8u60. I don't know at 
> the moment
> if there will be objections for the backport from a process p.o.v as 
> this calls for
> a specification change.
>
> Thanks!
> Srikanth.