[JSR308] Can we agree on our goals? (Google comment on the review
eu at javatx.org
Fri Feb 2 22:34:27 EST 2007
We already seen Googlers in this mailing list. I wonder if they or the
one responsible for the review ballot comment can give more insight and
perhaps some practical use cases that drove their comment.
PS: here is the comment:
On 2006-10-30 Google Inc. voted Yes with the following comment:
This note confirms our understanding that Section 2.1 should be less
specific. It should state the problem, which is that current
restrictions on the placement of annotations limit their utility for
certain applications such as program verification. Section 2.1 should
outline the proposed solution: that annotations should be permitted to
appear in more places, and perhaps local variable annotations should be
allowed in the class file. (We say "perhaps" because the JSR-175 EG
recognized that there are difficulties associated with this.) The
specific syntax and semantics should be left up to the expert group. The
syntax and semantics currently shown in Section 2 (and in Michael
Ernst's paper) belongs in Section 3, where it can serve as a key
contribution without constraining the expert group.
With this understanding, Google casts an enthusiastic yes vote, and
looks forward to serving on the Expert Group.
Trevor Harmon wrote:
> 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 in
More information about the JSR308