[Jsr308-statements] First draft of proposal

[Trevor Harmon]

On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:26 PM, Eugene Kuleshov wrote:

> -- First of all there is no need to have separate "visible" and  
> "invisible" attributes. For regular annotations those are used to  
> differentiate between attributes available trout reflection API and  
> those that aren't. Since we aren't planning to expose statement- 
> level annotations as well as other code-related annotations trough  
> reflection (btw, it worth to state that in the proposal document)  
> we don't need "visible" attribute.

Why are we not planning to expose statement annotations through  
reflection? It's rather trivial to support the visible/invisible  
distinction; I see no need to leave it out.

> -- It seems like we can just use another target_type and special  
> reference_info within the same RuntimeInvisibleTypeAnnotations  
> introduced in base JSR 308 proposal. Though that attribute could  
> probably named better for such purpose.

You mean instead of having separate TypeAnnotation/ 
StatementAnnotation attributes, we would merge them into a single  
attribute? Yes, that might be possible.

> -- Use case from "Object Allocation" section (on object creation,  
> new) is covered by the main JSR 308 proposal

Okay, I removed it.

>  I've also added some couple more examples to the wiki (fine- 
> grained statement advices for AOP and example from [a]C#)

Thanks, but why is your AOP example in the Concurrency, Atomicity,  
and Parallelization section?

Trevor