On 10/08/2015 04:49 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7199353
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.00/top
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.00/jdk
I think #2 in the rules listed in "Reconstructing an instance of Java
type J from a CompositeData" section needs some clarification/rewording.
#2 says if J has at least one public constructor with j.m.@CP....
- in fact J has at least one public constructor with either j.m.@CP or
j.b.@CP....
I think it's more appropriate to mention j.m.@CP takes precedence in #2
instead of adding the "For backward compatibility...." paragraph.
What about removing the new "For backward compatibility paragraph,...."
and update #2 as something like this:
2. Otherwise, if /J/ has at least one public constructor with either
j.m.CP or j.b.CP annotation, then one of those constructors.... be
called to reconstruct an instance of /J/. If a constructor is annotated
with both j.m.CP or j.b.CP, j.m.CP will be used and j.b.CP will be
ignored. <continue with the rest>
The existing tests are modified to use
j.m.annotation.ConstructorProperties. Can you remove java.desktop from
@modules list if the test no longer depends on java.desktop.
The new package.html file: should use package-info.java instead.
Mandy
