Javadoc (b116) lacks @FunctionalInterface on Observer signature

[Paul Benedict]

My point is not who should/shouldn't have the annotation, but that the
annotation appears (or disappears) seemingly randomly in the generated
javadoc signature... and yet the statement "This is a functional interface"
is on them all.



On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Joseph Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
>
> On 11/21/2013 2:47 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>
>> I have found some more inconsistencies in other types.
>>
>> These have it:
>> * FileFilter
>> * FilenameFilter
>> * Runnable
>>
>> These do not:
>> * AutoCloseable
>> * Comparable
>> * Iterable
>> * Readable
>> * Closeable
>> * Flushable
>>
>> If there are more, I don't know; I just wanted to give an FYI to start the
>> investigation.
>>
>
> At least some of these are intentional omissions; see
>
>         JDK-8022658 Revisit FunctionalInterface on some core libs types
>         https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8022658
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-
> October/022416.html
>
> HTH,
>
> -Joe
>
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict at apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  While reading the Observer javadocs [1], I noticed the message of it
>>> being
>>> a functional interface yet the annotation is not appearing on the
>>> signature:
>>>
>>> "public interface Observer" without the annotation.
>>>
>>> Now compare that to javadocs of Comparator:
>>> "@FunctionalInterface
>>> public interface Comparator<T>"
>>>
>>> [1] http://download.java.net/jdk8/docs/api/java/util/Observer.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Paul