[JSR308] Can we agree on our goals? (Google comment on the review ballot)

[Eugene Kuleshov]

  We already seen Googlers in this mailing list. I wonder if they or the 
one responsible for the review ballot comment can give more insight and 
perhaps some practical use cases that drove their comment.

  regards,
  Eugene

PS: here is the comment:

On 2006-10-30 Google Inc. voted Yes with the following comment:
This note confirms our understanding that Section 2.1 should be less 
specific. It should state the problem, which is that current 
restrictions on the placement of annotations limit their utility for 
certain applications such as program verification. Section 2.1 should 
outline the proposed solution: that annotations should be permitted to 
appear in more places, and perhaps local variable annotations should be 
allowed in the class file. (We say "perhaps" because the JSR-175 EG 
recognized that there are difficulties associated with this.) The 
specific syntax and semantics should be left up to the expert group. The 
syntax and semantics currently shown in Section 2 (and in Michael 
Ernst's paper) belongs in Section 3, where it can serve as a key 
contribution without constraining the expert group.

With this understanding, Google casts an enthusiastic yes vote, and 
looks forward to serving on the Expert Group.


Trevor Harmon wrote:
> 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.