Hi,
I have got some comments in the CSR [1], that affect the API of
java.lang.reflect.RecordComponent. As I have also received comments on
the opposite direction I think this deserves a broader discussion. Some
context I have added a toString method to RecordComponent after a review
comment. The proposal was to make the method similar to
java.lang.reflect.Field::toString so the current spec of the method is:
/** * Returns a string describing this record component, including * its
generic type. The format is: the generic record component type, *
followed by a space, followed by the fully-qualified name of the *
record class declaring the record component, followed by a period, *
followed by the name of the record component. * * @return a string
describing this record component, including its * generic type */
On the other hand I got another suggestion to make the method more
similar to java.lang.reflect.Parameter, so removing the record class
declaring the component from the resulting string. Which direction do we
want to go? Consider that there is already a similar method,
::toGenericString, with spec:
/** * Returns a string describing this record component, including * its
generic type. The format is: the generic record component type, *
followed by a space, followed by the fully-qualified name of the *
record class declaring the record component, followed by a period, *
followed by the name of the record component. * * @return a string
describing this record component, including its * generic type */
So any decision here should affect both. In addition I got another
suggestion to add a new method to j.l.r.RecordComponent:
`getDeclaringRecord` on the lines of
j.l.r.Parameter::getDeclaringExecutable. Comments?
Vicente
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8233436
