Re: Clarification Parameter.getName(…)

[Oliver Gierke]

I know, but this feels like a hack and I wonder if it makes sense to expose that scenario into the method signature :).

Am 05.06.2013 um 13:44 schrieb Thomas Darimont <thomas.darimont at googlemail.com>:

> Hello Oliver,
> 
> In order to determine whether the "real" parameter names are present on the given Method,
> you could check via reflection whether the name attribute of the Parameter instance 
> is null or an empty String.
> 
> See the implementation of getName() in java.lang.reflect.Parameter:
> 
>     public String getName() {
>         // Note: empty strings as paramete names are now outlawed.
>         // The .equals("") is for compatibility with current JVM
>         // behavior.  It may be removed at some point.
>         if(name == null || name.equals(""))
>             return "arg" + index;
>         else
>             return name;
>     }
> 
> Best regards,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 2013/6/5 Oliver Gierke <ogierke at gopivotal.com>
> Hi all,
> 
> the Parameter class introduced in Java 8 seems to return "arg0" for a call to getName(), even if the parameter name is not available in the bytecode. This makes it impossible to discover parameter names not being present in the bytecode and potentially taking further action in case names cannot be resolved. Does it make sense to return an Optional<String> to indicate this case?
> 
> Will parameter names be available for interface methods as well? Currently they cannot be resolved.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ollie
> 
> --
> /**
>  * @author Oliver Gierke - Senior Member Technical Staff
>  *
>  * @param email ogierke at gopivotal.com
>  * @param phone +49-151-50465477
>  * @param fax   +49-351-418898439
>  * @param skype einsdreizehn
>  * @see http://www.olivergierke.de
>  */
> 
> 

-- 
/**
 * @author Oliver Gierke - Senior Member Technical Staff
 *
 * @param email ogierke at gopivotal.com
 * @param phone +49-151-50465477
 * @param fax   +49-351-418898439
 * @param skype einsdreizehn
 * @see http://www.olivergierke.de
 */