[Jsr308-statements] First draft of proposal

[Eugene Kuleshov]

Trevor Harmon 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 doesn't seem to make sense sense to expose them trough runtime 
reflection API because statements and other method details aren't 
exposed at the runtime. Also see note about similar reasoning for casts 
and other method implementation details in 
http://pag.csail.mit.edu/jsr308/java-annotation-design.html#htoc12

>> -- 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. I think my note was suggesting to use same attribute as for core 
JSR 308 features.
>>  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?
  Sorry about that. Please more it into the appropriate section.

  regards,
  Eugene