RFR 7199353: Allow ConstructorProperties annotation from any package

[Jaroslav Bachorik]

On 8.10.2015 14:15, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 08/10/2015 12:49, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> Please, review the following change
>>
>> Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7199353
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.00/top
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.00/jdk
>>
> I see this patch is against jigsaw/jake but I assume this will go into
> JDK 9 via jdk9/dev. No need for it to be pushed via the jake forest, right?

The patch is adding a new exported package to java.management - so it 
would have to be adjusted to the way jdk9 defines modules right now (eg. 
modules.xml). And then do this again for jigsaw/jake

I would, personally, prefer to do the change only once (in jigsaw/jake) 
and then just let the change trickle back to jdk9/dev once jigsaw is merged.

>
> That said, there is some wording in MXBean that will need adjustments
> for modules.  Specifically the wording around subset Profiles of Java SE
> will need to be modernized a bit to cover any Java SE run-time that
> doesn't have the java.desktop module (or java.beans package).

Should it be done in one change? I mean, it is not really related to @CP 
changes. Probably a separate RFE for the docs update?

>
> The approach and the new @CS trumping the old looks good. I'm not sure
> that I agree with logging a warning when
> java.beans.ConstructorProperties is used. I would be tempted to leave
> that out.

The idea is that we want users to stop using @j.b.CP for JMX purposes. 
So we might as well warn them about the suboptimal solution they are 
using. But I don't insist on the logging.

>
> The updates to the javadoc mostly okay. In the paragraph on "For
> backward compatibility .." then it probably should make clear that this
> annotations works in exactly the same way as the
> javax.management.annotation.CS.

Ok

>
> The webrev makes it looks like the beans @CS has been renamed, is this a
> hg copy?

Yep.

>
> I see this patch adds a package.html, any reason not to use
> package-info.java here?

Copy/paste :(

>
> I assume LegacyConstructorPropertiesTest's header will be fixed up so
> that the copyright header is at the top.

Yep, this one slipped through ...

Thanks,

-JB-

>
> -Alan