On 14.10.2015 16:52, Mandy Chung wrote:
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.
Using a different name could prevent any confusion about
@j.b.ConstructorProperties
IMO, migration should be pretty straight forward with global replace
even if we change the annotation name.
-JB-
Mandy
