[JSR308] Can we agree on our goals?

[Trevor Harmon]

On Feb 2, 2007, at 5:23 PM, Tom Ball wrote:

> 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.

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 agreement.

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

Perhaps not a mandate, but the comments deserve more than just  
dismissal with a "slippery slope" argument. The fact is that there  
are entire classes of applications that simply cannot take advantage  
of Java annotations in their current form. WCET analyzers, invariant  
checkers, and other static analysis tools are being totally excluded  
from the benefits of the annotation framework. The comments from the  
Executive Committee reflect this fact.

> you have two votes for an X and one for a Y, and from this alias  
> has come Z and Q.

What are the Z and Q?

Trevor