Hi,
You did not provide a direct reference to the set of warnings that were
generated.
fortunately I found it here :-
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8066622
A couple of things I find 'unfortunate' are
1) In order to avoid a deprecation warning on one call/line of a 100
line method,
the entire method is subject to the annotation. Eg :-
dev/jdk/src/java.desktop/share/classes/javax/print/ServiceUI.java:226:
warning: [deprecation] show() in Dialog has been deprecated
Other deprecated uses could silently creep into such a body of code.
2) Some significant fraction of all the warnings are for getPeer() :-
dev/jdk/src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/Container.java:821:
warning: [deprecation] getPeer() in Component has been deprecated
The issue here is that the deprecation javadoc tag is unable to
distinguish deprecated for
external usage vs legitimate internal usage. There is no problem with
code inside the desktop module
calling getPeer() which is defined in this same module. There may not
be many other APIs that
have this similar issue, but if there are it might be better to find
some way to make it clear
that we aren't suppressing warnings until we fix the code : rather we
really should not be
receiving a warning here anyway since there is nothing to fix. Perhaps
"Component. getPeer()"
could acquire an annotation like "module-nodeprecation" which
automatically suppresses the
annotation processor warnings for all such cases. If javac doesn't know
about modules perhaps
we could utilise a javac flag that's used only by the JDK build to
indicate that an annotation
like that should apply.
Regarding the show() case above I came across a puzzle.
show() is first defined on Component, as is its 'replacement'
setVisible(boolean).
It turns out that what we have in Component is
public void setVisible(boolean b) {
show(b);
}
@Deprecated
public void show(boolean b) {
if (b) {
show();
} else {
hide();
}
@Deprecated
public void show() {
...
}
So I am puzzled why those uses within Component aren't suppressed in
your webrev ?
Is there some automatic suppression of the warnings within the class
that does
the deprecation ? If so then perhaps the module idea above can be considered
an extension of this. If that isn't what's happening, then what is ?
-phil.
On 12/9/2014 4:41 PM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
In support of JEP 212: Resolve Lint and Doclint Warnings
(http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/212), which is targeted to JDK 9, please
review the large but straightforward set of changes in the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8066621.0/
Some background of the approach being taken to address this part of
JEP 212 was discussed on core-libs:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2014-December/030085.html
Briefly, to allow the deprecation warnings to be dealt with and that
sole remaining lint warning category enabled in the build, a two-step
approach is being taken. The first step is to suppress the deprecation
warnings and the second step is for area-experts to examine the
specific uses of deprecated APIs in their code. This webrev only
attempts to cover the first step.
The webrev is based off of the JDK 9 "dev" forest rather than the
"client" forest. Since the change only involves copyright updates and
adding annotations, there would be no functional modification in the
changeset. Therefore, I would strongly prefer to push these changes
directly to dev rather than pushing them to client and waiting for
them to propagate to dev to expedite the time when the build warning
can be enabled. (If a warning is not enabled in the build, new
instances of the warning tend to creep into the code base.)
Thanks,
-Joe
