RFR 7199353: Allow ConstructorProperties annotation from any package

Jaroslav Bachorik jaroslav.bachorik at oracle.com
Wed Oct 14 13:38:24 UTC 2015


On 14.10.2015 15:24, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
>
> On 14/10/2015 10:34, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>
>> Round 2 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.01
>>
>> Changes against round 1:
>>
>> * @javax.management.ConstructorProperties (was
>> @javax.management.annotation.ConstructorProperties)
>> * diff is against the current jdk9 (eg. not the jigsaw repo)
>> * removed warning when @j.b.ConstructorProperties is used
>> * changed the wording in the reconstruction rules in @MXBean as
>> recommended
>> * changed the issue synopsis as recommended
>>
>> JDK JMX tests are still passing completely.
>
> Good to see the new @CP in the right place.
>
> "When @java.beans.ConstructorProperties is used then rule 2 is not
> applicable to subset Profiles of Java SE that do not include the
> java.beans package."
>
> I think this needs to say that when @java.beans.ConstructorProperties is
> present, and @javax.management.ConstructorProperties is not present,
> then rule 2 is not applicable.

Eg. "When only @java.beans.ConstructorProperties is used then rule 2 is 
not applicable to subset Profiles of Java SE that do not include the 
java.beans package." ?

>
> I realize ConstructorProperties.java has been copied from the beans
> ConstructorProperties.java but I think a bit of clean-up is in order.
> L37 is mis-aligned, the example could use {@code ...}, the comment on
> the value method could be cleaned up.
>
> Also in the javadoc example then shouldn't the getXXX methods be public?
>
> One other thing that comes to mind is whether we need any updates to
> javadoc in the java.beans area. I could imagine someone in the IDE
> typing ConstructorProperties and accidentally selecting
> @javax.management.ConstructorProperties and getting confused. I'm mostly
> wondering if the there should be someone in the java.beans javadoc to
> make it clear that @javax.management.ConstructorProperties is ignored.

Hm, shouldn't we name the new annotation differently then? 
@ConstructorMapping ? It is not mandatory that we keep the actual name - 
we are changing the package anyway ...

-JB-

>
> -Alan.
>



More information about the jigsaw-dev mailing list