On 14.10.2015 17:11, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 14.10.2015 16:52, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@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.
Any objections to changing the annotation name to @ConstructorMapping to
make it better distinguishable from @java.beans.ConstructorProperties ?
-JB-
-JB-
Mandy
