[JSR308] Re: Classfile representation of annotations
gafter at google.com
Sat Feb 3 16:59:51 EST 2007
Both compile-time verification (of annotations) and annotations as part of
the interface don't require annotations be preserved in the bytecode. By
bytecode here I don't mean class files, but the part of the class file
representing the body of a method. In other words, section 4 cites use
cases that support changes to the class file format, but don't support
anything in the class file format to represent anything in the interior of
On 2/3/07, Michael Ernst <mernst at csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> > What API changes do
> > we want that would require class file format changes?
> I'm not sure there are API changes, but there are tasks that require a
> classfile representation of the annotations.
> Section 4 of the proposal starts out as follows:
> 4 Class File Format Extensions
> Java annotations (including the extended annotations) must be stored in
> the class file for two reasons. First, they may be part of the interface
> of a class and, if so, must be available to the compiler (really, to the
> type-checking plug-in [Dar06]) when compiling clients of the
> class. Second, since class files may originate from any source, the
> information may be useful in other contexts, such as compile-time
> Several examples have been posted to this list, as well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the JSR308