Hi Jon, Thanks for the info.
If I bring it up on the Java subreddit and see what people say, would it count as a measure for interest? How is "sufficient interest" evaluated, more or less? - Nir On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:27 AM Jonathan Gibbons <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10/02/2018 06:54 AM, Nir Lisker wrote: > > Hi, > > Many static methods are used to obtain an instance of a class, functioning > as a de-facto constructor and sometimes replacing it altogether. These are > factory or builder methods and the like. > > The problem is that while they function as constructors, they are hidden > between the rest of the methods in the JavaDoc. It is my understanding that > the Constructors section shows how to create an instance, while the Methods > section shows how to use it. In this case, the aforementioned methods will > fit better in the Constructors section. > > One way this can be solved is via an annotation on the method that would > list it under the Constructors, used at the developers discretion. As an > example, Toolkit is a singleton: > > public class Toolkit { > > private final Toolkit TOOLKIT; > > private Toolkit() { ... } > > @Constructor > public static getDefaultSystemToolkit() { return TOOLKIT; } > } > > > The annotation shows the intended way for a developer to obtain the > instance. > > I can submit an RFE if this is plausible. Otherwise, I'm open for other > solutions if you agree with the problem I presented. > > - Nir > > > Nir, > > It's not an unreasonable request, and has been suggested before, dating > back to 2002. > > That being said, there has not been sufficient interest to make it happen. > > See this JBS issue for one of the early requests: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4619333 > > -- Jon >
