It seems pretty clear that this "feature" is a leftover from an early
implementation, doesn't clearly say what it is supposed to do, is more
complicated than it looks, and is buggily implemented. While I
understand the temptation to "fix" it, at this point we'd realistically
be adding a basically entirely new reflection feature that hasn't gone
through any sort of design analysis -- we'd just be guessing about what
the original intent of this vestigial feature is. It seems the
reasonable options are to either leave it alone, deprecate it, or engage
in a much more deliberate redesign. (And given the fact that I can
think of at least 1,000 things that are higher priority, I'd not be
inclined to pursue the third option.)
On 6/2/2021 11:06 PM, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
<github.com+26887752+jaroslavtul...@openjdk.org> wrote:
There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To get
at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test for
existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it in this
pull request without any changes to the JVM behavior.
FYI: The current test is a "mirror" copy of
[AnnotationTypeRuntimeAssumptionTest.java](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/0f689ea8f29be113cc8a917a86fd9e0f85f921fc/test/jdk/java/lang/annotation/AnnotationType/AnnotationTypeRuntimeAssumptionTest.java)
with adjustments to cover the `CLASS`->`RUNTIME` migration.
What I would do is to add a patch for the parser bug
That's an interesting discovery! I see a patch and I can include it as your
commit in this PR, if there is a test...
and then extend the test in 3 dimensions:
...or just take my PR and expand it. Also the checkbox _"Allow edits and access to
secrets by maintainers"_ is on - e.g. this PR is open for modifications.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4280
