On 9/10/2013 10:08 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
On 09/10/2013 11:54 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 9/10/13 9:47 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
On 9/10/2013 6:28 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 06/09/2013 04:23, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
:
Well, looking ahead to when the platform will be composed of modules,
those modules will declare that they "export" some API elements, but
not others. An @Exported annotation would help get people used to
the expected future terminology.
@Exported is quite good, and consistent with where this is likely
going.
Joe - what would you think of just running with this? I'm anxious
that we decide on this soon so that we don't run out of time in jdk8.
I don't object to using @Exported.
I like @Exported as well.
If we're framing it in terms of modules, I think it would make more
sense to have exporting be default and "hidden" be opt-in.
And, while we're at it, "hidden" really ought to apply at a package
level, not a class level.
In other words: don't make this about modularity.
To bring in some of the initial context, this feature is about
documenting and formalizing the historically unclear
exported-ness/supported-ness of types in the com.sun.* packages. Some
com.sun.* types are intended to be used outside of the JDK while others
are not.
To bring clarity to this situation, I'd like to see each type and
package in com.sun.* either have an explicit @Exported(true) XOR
@Exported(false) annotation applied to it. This make a clear statement
around the intentions of the type and will allow better tooling to be
written.
-Joe
