On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 4:47 AM Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com> wrote:
This came up before, but we didn’t reach a conclusion.
>
> A record component is more than just the lower-level members (fields,
> accessors, ctor params) it gets desugared too. So it seems reasonable that
> it be considered an annotatable program element, and that reflection expose
> directly the annotations on record components (separately from any
> annotations on the class members that may or may not derive from desugaring
> of records.)
>
> But, that still leaves the question of whether the desugaring should, or
> should not be, transparent to annotations. My sense is that pushing
> annotations down to fields, ctor params, and accessors _seems_ friendly,
> but also opens a number of uncomfortable questions.
>
> - Should we treat the cases where @A has a target of RECORD_COMPONENT,
> separately from the cases where it does not, such as, only push the
> annotation down to members when the target does not include
> RECORD_COMPONENT? That is, is the desire to push down annotations based on
> “well, what if we want to apply a “legacy” annotation? If so, this causes
> a migration compatibility issue; if someone adds RC to the targets list for
> @A, then when the record is recompiled, the location of the annotations
> will changed, possibly changing the behavior of frameworks that encounter
> the record.
>
No, we would certainly not require @RC to also be present. If I have
released a method annotation it is the current reality that *any* method
can use it, including ones I meant it to be applicable to and ones I
didn't. I would expect the methods that appear on records to be no
exception.
- What if @A has a target set of { field, parameter }, but for some reason
> the user does _not_ want the annotation pushed down? Tough luck?
> Redeclare the member without the annotation?
>
Sure, that sounds fine.
> - If the user explicitly redeclares the member (ctor, accessor), what
> happens? Do we still implicitly push down annotations from record
> components to the explicit member? Will this be confusing when the source
> says “@B int x() -> x”, but reflection yields both @A and @B as annotations
> on x()?
>
Saying that redeclaring makes you responsible for the annotation choices
(i.e., none copied) makes perfect sense to me!
All of which causes me to back up and say: what is the motivation for
> pushing these down to implicit members, other than “general friendliness”?
> Is this a migration strategy for migrating existing code to use records,
> without having to redeclare annotations on the members? And if so, how
> useful is it really? Will users want to throw the union of
> field/accessor/ctor parameter annotations on the record components just to
> gain compatibility with their existing code?
>
Say project A has released jars containing method annotations and we're
using those annotations on our methods. Under your proposal we are
prevented from converting to records. We have to beg project A to upgrade
to Java 1X. And in fact since they will likely not want to suddenly pull
the rug out from all their users on earlier Java versions, what I really
need to beg them to do is adopt jep238 multirelease jars, which probably
also means adopting a preprocessor in their build so they can generate the
different versions (as this is a pretty bad case for branching).
This can result in a long period where records are unadoptable by the end
user.
Btw, this precise issue will not be hypothetical for us. :-)
My gut sense is that the stable solution is to make record component a new
> kind of target, and encourage frameworks to learn about these, rather than
> trying to fake out frameworks by emulating legacy behavior.
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Kevin Bourrillion <kev...@google.com> wrote:
>
> Re: annotations,
>
> Doc says, "Record components constitute a new place to put annotations;
> we'll likely want to extend the @Target meta-annotation to reflect this."
>
> I'm sure we discussed this before, but I also expect to be able to put any
> METHOD-, FIELD- or PARAMETER-targeted annotation on a record component, and
> have that annotation appear to be present on the synthesized
> accessor/field/constructor-parameter. Is that sensible?
>
> (As for records themselves, I expect they are targeted with TYPE just as
> enums/interfaces/"plain old classes" (jeesh, is there any term that means
> the latter?).)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:16 PM Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I've updated the document on data classes here:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/amber/datum.html
>>
>> (older versions of the document are retained in the same directory for
>> historical comparison.)
>>
>> While the previous version was mostly about tradeoffs, this version
>> takes a much more opinionated interpretation of the feature, offering
>> more examples of use cases of where it is intended to be used (and not
>> used). Many of the "under consideration" flexibilities (extension,
>> mutability, additional fields) have collapsed to their more restrictive
>> form; while some people will be disappointed because it doesn't solve
>> the worst of their boilerplate problems, our conclusion is: records are
>> a powerful feature, but they're not necessarily the delivery vehicle for
>> easing all the (often self-inflicted) pain of JavaBeans. We can
>> continue to explore relief for these situations too as separate
>> features, but trying to be all things to all classes has delayed the
>> records train long enough, and I'm convince they're separate problems
>> that want separate solutions. Time to let the records train roll.
>>
>> I've also combined the information on sealed types in this document, as
>> the two are so tightly related.
>>
>> Comments welcome.
>>
>
>
> --
> Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kev...@google.com
>
>
>
--
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kev...@google.com
