I agree. Remi
On February 15, 2017 12:52:53 AM GMT+01:00, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: >2017/2/13 9:17:47 -0800, Guillaume Smet <guilla...@hibernate.org>: >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:10 PM, alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote: >>> On 13/02/2017 16:58, Guillaume Smet wrote: >>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:12 PM, alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I agree that @Generated is awkward but I haven't suggested >removing it. >>>> >>>> What do you suggest then? As far as I understood you, you were >suggesting >>>> removing the module in Java 10 so the @Generated annotation would >also be >>>> gone? Or did I misunderstand? >>> >>> That is the proposal. If it goes ahead then it means that tools that >rely >>> on these annotations in the JDK would need to deploy the standalone >version >>> on the class path or as a module on the module path. >> >> Yeah, so basically, it would end up with >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/jmh/rev/d74b2861222c . >> >> I don't think it's the best possible outcome for this useful >annotation. > >I agree. > >The `@Generated` annotation falls outside the original charter of the >`java.lang.annotation` package, which was meant for annotations that >directly support the language's annotation facility, but we already >added `@Native` in SE 8, so let's add `@Generated` in SE 9 as David >suggests and encourage people to use it when running on this and later >releases. > >The fact that `@Generated` is so widely used is new information to some >of us, so thanks for bringing it up. > >- Mark -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
