Hi Joe,
On Jul 15, 2011, at 1:49 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 14/07/2011 12:21 PM, joe.da...@oracle.com wrote:
>> Please code review my JDK 8 changes for
>>
>> 7007535: (reflect) Please generalize Constructor and Method
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/7007535.3
>>
>> To summarize the changes, a new superclass is defined to capture the common
>> functionality of java.lang.reflect.Method and java.lang.reflect.Constructor.
>> That superclass is named "Executable" along the lines of
>> javax.lang.model.ExecutableElement, which models constructors and methods in
>> the JSR 269 language model.
>>
>> Both specification and implementation code are shared. To preserve the right
>> @since behavior, it is common that in Method/Constructor the javadoc for a
>> method will now look like:
>>
>> /**
>> * {@inheritDoc}
>> * @since 1.5
>> */
>
> Unless they have fixed/changed javadoc (entirely possible) it used to be that
> the above would not cause @throws declarations for unchecked exceptions to be
> inherited - you have/had to explicitly repeat them as:
>
> @throws <exception-type> {@inheritDoc}
Yes, that would seem to be needed for some of the inherited getters of generics
info, which specify unchecked exception types.
>> Since Executable is being created in JDK 8, it would be incorrect for
>> methods in that class to have an @since of 1.5; adding the @since in
>> Method/Constructor preserves the right information.
In Executable.java, getAnnotation and getDeclaredAnnotations do have "@since
1.5"-- oversight?
In Constructor.java and Method.java, getExceptionTypes has "@since 1.5", but
that method has existed in those classes since 1.1.
In Executable.java:
216 /**
217 * Returns an array of {@code Class} objects that represent the formal
218 * parameter types, in declaration order, of the method
219 * represented by this {@code Method} object. Returns an array of
length
220 * 0 if the underlying method takes no parameters.
221 *
222 * @return the parameter types for the method this object
223 * represents
At least "{@code Method}" needs to be generalized, and perhaps all occurrences
of "method"?
Cheers,
-- Peter
