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

List:       openjdk-serviceability-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR 7199353: Allow ConstructorProperties annotation from any package
From:       Jaroslav Bachorik <jaroslav.bachorik () oracle ! com>
Date:       2015-10-14 15:11:12
Message-ID: 561E7090.4080006 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 14.10.2015 16:52, Mandy Chung wrote:
> 
> > On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman@oracle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hm, shouldn't we name the new annotation differently then? @ConstructorMapping \
> > > ? It is not mandatory that we keep the actual name - we are changing the \
> > > package anyway ...
> > This may have been discussed previously, Mandy might know. I think at one point \
> > that jmx-dev was thinking about matching on any @CP property and that might have \
> > influenced the naming.
> 
> I don't recall any discussion on the name. The initial suggestion was to match any \
> @CP.   One benefit of keeping it @ConstructorProperties is for easy migration from \
> java.beans to javax.management. 
> I don't have strong opinion if it should be a different name.

Using a different name could prevent any confusion about 
@j.b.ConstructorProperties

IMO, migration should be pretty straight forward with global replace 
even if we change the annotation name.

-JB-

> 
> Mandy
> 


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