primary fields, reflection and annotations

[Kevin Bourrillion]

Ideally, if the annotation has ElementType.FIELD, it would get copied to
the field, and also, if it has ElementType.METHOD, it would get copied to
the accessor method. Of course if it's TYPE_USE then it's part of the type
and should go everywhere the type goes. Lastly, if it has PARAMETER I would
certainly expect it to be findable on the constructor itself.  I would
intuitively expect all these things to work without any need for
ElementType.RECORD_FIELD.


On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> By default, the fields should not be private, but package-access, like
> other classes.  (You are permitted to upgrade them to public.)
>
> But let's ignore the details for a minute, and ask: is a (non-type)
> annotation on a "field" of a record just a field annotation, or is it
> something more?
>
>
> On 12/6/2017 10:10 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
>> I suppose it's a good idea to support annotations on record fields,
>>    record Person(@JSONProperty String name);
>> at least the current prototype support that, it considers that the target
>> is an ElementType.FIELD and copy the annotations to the generated fields.
>>
>> To access to the annotation sat runtime, you have to crawle the declared
>> fields of the record which are private.
>> And those annotations are not present as parameter annotation of the
>> primary constructor.
>>
>> I think we should consider how we want to reflect on a record Class,
>>    Do we want a java.lang.reflect.RecordField ?
>>    Do we want a new annotation target RECORD_FIELD ?
>>
>> regards,
>> Rémi
>>
>>
>


-- 
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20171206/b155329d/attachment.html>