A simpler model for repeating annotations

[Alex Buckley]

On 1/7/2013 8:55 AM, michael keith wrote:
> Since the get[Declared]Annotations(Class) methods are semantically
> different from the others they do deserve something different in their
> names to indicate it. However, given that the javadoc of the lagacy
> get[Declared]Annotations() methods state simply "Returns *all*
> annotations [directly] present on this element" (emphasis added) I am
> not sure that adding "All" to the semantically different
> get[Declared]Annotations(Class) pair is going to be a very good
> differentiator. Maybe "multiple" could be used in a different way, for
> example: get[Declared]AnnotationsWithMultiples?

We will in any case change the specs of legacy methods to avoid "all 
annotations". We will also say more about container annotation and 
look-through in the specs of new methods.

With regard to names, an advantage of getAnnotationsWithMultiples(Class) 
is that it will appear after the legacy methods, which I think is better 
than appearing first like getAllAnnotations(Class). Stay tuned.

> Also, I was just wondering if the getDeclaredAnnotation(Class) method
> will be considered a backfilled "new legacy" method and have similar
> semantics to getAnnotation(Class), or will it look through?

The former. Per the PDF:

"- Add getDeclaredAnnotation(Class<T>). The behavior is that of 
getAnnotation(Class<T>) but ignoring inherited annotations on classes. 
For simplicity, the added method is treated as an "SE 7 method" in the 
remainder of this document."

Alex