> On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> 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 ... > This may have been discussed previously, Mandy might know. I think at one > point that jmx-dev was thinking about matching on any @CP property and that > might have influenced the naming.
I don’t recall any discussion on the name. The initial suggestion was to match any @CP. One benefit of keeping it @ConstructorProperties is for easy migration from java.beans to javax.management. I don’t have strong opinion if it should be a different name. Mandy
