[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-core-libs-dev
Subject:    Re: Change of the toString implementation for annotations
From:       joe darcy <joe.darcy () oracle ! com>
Date:       2016-07-29 23:33:10
Message-ID: 001bf6c3-1dea-2f0a-e3c2-0e511d8432b7 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

It appears the plain overloads of Arrays.toString cannot be used to 
provide an annotation source compatible form since they use "[]" rather 
than "{}" to surround to contents. I'll see if I can handle that.

On 7/28/2016 8:33 AM, Rafael Winterhalter wrote:
> Another remark about "printability". Array types are printed in their 
> internal form, i.e. "java.lang.Void[].class" becomes 
> "Ljava.lang.Void;.class" in the string form.

Ah yes, good catch -- some more checking is required there.

>
> While I very much agree over the improvements of the toString 
> implementation of the unresolved values, I still wonder if this 
> special treatment is really necessary and justify the compatibility 
> break. Are the curly braces meant to avoid confusion from parsing 
> annotation values where the braces could also be part of a type 
> literal? Any parser would need to process the annotation string 
> sensitively anyways as string values could contain any value, if this 
> is the case.

As a general comment, the exact toString output of an annotation is 
deliberately not specified; from java.lang.annotation.Annotation.toString():

      * Returns a string representation of this annotation.  The details
      * of the representation are implementation-dependent [...]

Therefore, the details of the toString output of annotations are not a 
formally exported interface of the platform. (For more details 
discussions of such matters see [1].)

Early in the life of the platform, there was a preference to exactly 
specify toString output and hash values, etc., but this policy was found 
to be overly constraining so we moved away from that.

HTH,

-Joe

[1] 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/OpenJdkDevGuide/OpenJdkDevelopersGuide.v0.777.html

>
> Best regards, Rafael
>
> 2016-07-28 15:38 GMT+02:00 Rafael Winterhalter <rafael.wth@gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafael.wth@gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi Joe,
>     thank you for your answer. Can I ask for the rationale of using {}
>     instead of [] only for classes? If the goal was to come closer to
>     the source code representation, would this not imply to use curly
>     braces for all array of an annotation?
>     Thank you for your time! Best regards, Rafael
>
>     2016-07-19 4:13 GMT+02:00 joe darcy <joe.darcy@oracle.com
>     <mailto:joe.darcy@oracle.com>>:
>
>         Hello Rafael,
>
>         On 7/18/2016 5:43 PM, Rafael Winterhalter wrote:
>
>             Hello,
>             I recognized a failing test on Java 9 caused by a changed
>             return value
>             returned by toString on an annotation with a class-property.
>
>             When calling toString on an annotation: @interface Foo {
>             Class<?> value();
>             } instantiated as @Foo(Bar.class) with Java 8 it would be
>             printed as:
>
>             @Foo(class Bar)
>
>             while in Java 9 it is printed as:
>
>             @Foo(Bar.class)
>
>             Is this change intended? I do not see a big benefit of
>             this implementation
>             change and it could break code. In my case, the problem is
>             not that big, it
>             is an easy fix but still, I found it a bit surprising.
>
>
>         I pushed the change your test noticed; it was done as part of
>
>             JDK-5040830: (ann) please improve toString() for
>         annotations containing exception proxies
>         https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-5040830
>
>         The basic rationale for the change is that "Foo.class" is the
>         syntax that appears when annotations are in source code so the
>         toString() form should generally reflect that.
>
>         Thanks for running your project against JDK 9 builds; HTH,
>
>         -Joe
>
>
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]