[JSR308] Can we agree on our goals? (Google comment on the review
brian at quiotix.com
Fri Feb 2 22:45:59 EST 2007
My reading of this is not that they are in favor of any _specific_
widening of the scope of annotations, but that they feel that it is
inappropriate in a JSR to propose such a specific solution in section 2.
Instead, JSRs should state the problem that they are trying to
address, with perhaps some constraints, and give the EG flexibility to
find the best solution. Section 3 is the place to show ideas, starting
points, strawmen, etc, that might be considered by the EG but are not
part of what is being mandated by the EC to the EG.
By "in more places", I think they don't mean "more places than are
proposed in section 2.1", instead they mean "more places than allowed in
Java SE 6."
This is more of a comment on the structure of the JSR than any
particular technical solution.
Eugene Kuleshov wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> JSR308 mailing list
> JSR308 at lists.csail.mit.edu
More information about the JSR308