[JSR308] Can we agree on our goals?
Tom.Ball at Sun.COM
Fri Feb 2 20:23:01 EST 2007
Trevor Harmon wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2007, at 3:36 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>> Statements of the form "I don't need annotations on everything, I just
>> need them on X" begs to dance down the slippery slope; different
>> constituencies will have different visions of X, and we end up with X,
>> Y, Z, and Q, and THEN another JSR to add everything else...
> It looks like you're arguing that JSR-308 should not go as far as
> allowing annotations on loops (and possibly other statements). If so,
> please look at the ballot results:
> Note that every one of the voters who added comments voiced their desire
> for extending annotations to loops, blocks, and perhaps local variables,
> as well.
> If this is a slippery slope, it's one that the Executive Committee (and
> others on this list) feels is worth treading.
Perhaps you should read the results more carefully, as you combined one
comment for loops and blocks (with a supporting vote) and a "perhaps
local variables" remark. Of the thirteen EG members that voted, only
three offered comments on two different areas. That's hardly a mandate.
Independent of whether the EG's comments should be discussed (I believe
they should), the ballot results illustrate Brian's point exactly: you
have two votes for an X and one for a Y, and from this alias has come Z
and Q. His concern (and previous JSR experience) is worth noting.
More information about the JSR308