RFR: 8145461 changes to @Deprecated annotation

[David M. Lloyd]

On 04/01/2016 12:56 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> On 3/30/16 6:03 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>> As I said in another forum, I think "condemned" is a bit too obtuse to
>> read,
>> linguistically (not to mention humorously ambiguous, as you yourself
>> pointed
>> out).  I prefer "plain langauge"; something more like "forRemoval"
>> would be
>> better IMO.  Also I agree with Stephen about the usefulness of
>> specifying an
>> "until" version, but I understand the counterpoints and this could
>> also just as
>> easily be done by a third-party library, especially now that JavaDoc is
>> presumably going to be much nicer (and thus hopefully more pluggable).
>
> Yes, we've had our bit of fun with "condemned." I've gotten a fair
> amount of in-person feedback that has been in the form of wrinkled noses
> and knitted eyebrows and comments like "isn't there a better word?" I
> admit that was my first impression as well, but I've gotten used to it.
> Nonetheless, it's time to change it.
>
> There doesn't seem to single word that expresses "we have decided to
> remove this in the future" unambiguously and without excess baggage.
>
> So, a compound word seems necessary. After kicking around "toBeRemoved"
> or "subjectToRemoval" I've come back around to David's suggestion here
> of "forRemoval". It seems a bit odd when considered by itself, but in
> actual usage it reads pretty well:
>
>      @Deprecated(since="9", forRemoval=true)
>      public void foo() { ... }
>
>
>
> For example, one say "The foo() method has been deprecated for removal."
>
> Here's an updated webrev with the rename, as well as other edits in
> response to feedback:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/8145461/webrev.1/

Looks good!
-- 
- DML