[JSR308] Can we agree on our goals?

Tom Ball Tom.Ball at Sun.COM
Fri Feb 2 20:23:01 EST 2007

Trevor Harmon wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2007, at 3:36 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>> Statements of the form "I don't need annotations on everything, I just 
>> need them on X" begs to dance down the slippery slope; different 
>> constituencies will have different visions of X, and we end up with X, 
>> Y, Z, and Q, and THEN another JSR to add everything else...
> It looks like you're arguing that JSR-308 should not go as far as 
> allowing annotations on loops (and possibly other statements). If so, 
> please look at the ballot results:
> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=4026
> Note that every one of the voters who added comments voiced their desire 
> for extending annotations to loops, blocks, and perhaps local variables, 
> as well.
> If this is a slippery slope, it's one that the Executive Committee (and 
> others on this list) feels is worth treading.

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.  Of the thirteen EG members that voted, only 
three offered comments on two different areas.  That's hardly a mandate.

Independent of whether the EG's comments should be discussed (I believe 
they should), the ballot results illustrate Brian's point exactly:  you 
have two votes for an X and one for a Y, and from this alias has come Z 
and Q.  His concern (and previous JSR experience) is worth noting.


More information about the JSR308 mailing list