[JSR308] Can we agree on our goals?
trevor at vocaro.com
Fri Feb 2 21:38:18 EST 2007
On Feb 2, 2007, at 5:23 PM, Tom Ball wrote:
> 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.
Google's comment was, "Annotations should be permitted to appear in
more places, and perhaps local variable annotations should be allowed
in the class file."
Note that Google says "more places" not "local variables". The
"perhaps local variables" remark was just to remind folks that if
local variables are to fall under that "more places" umbrella, then
the class file format will have to be changed.
If Google's definition of "more places" includes loops and blocks --
and I think that's a safe assumption -- then all three comments are
> Of the thirteen EG members that voted, only three offered comments
> on two different areas. That's hardly a mandate.
Perhaps not a mandate, but the comments deserve more than just
dismissal with a "slippery slope" argument. The fact is that there
are entire classes of applications that simply cannot take advantage
of Java annotations in their current form. WCET analyzers, invariant
checkers, and other static analysis tools are being totally excluded
from the benefits of the annotation framework. The comments from the
Executive Committee reflect this fact.
> you have two votes for an X and one for a Y, and from this alias
> has come Z and Q.
What are the Z and Q?
More information about the JSR308