You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »

This table summarizes what known open issues are, both in the specification and the RI, and points to the discussions on the mailing lists.

IssueNext responsibleEmail thread
Receiver parameter nameEG, wmdietl

Receiver parameter name checks should not be based on Strings, but on semantics:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000796.html

The EG needs to finalize the spec on what receiver parameter names are legal:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-spec-experts/2013-April/000103.html

Receiver parameter APIwmdietl

Provide nicer integration of receiver parameters:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000797.html

Method/Constructor distinctionEGA proposed change needs to be decided:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-spec-experts/2013-April/000106.html
Interaction between Target and qualified nameswmdietl

Ensure recent discussion is implemented:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-spec-experts/2013-April/000113.html

JLS Creator productionEG, Mike

A production needs an update in the spec:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-spec-experts/2013-April/000121.html

   
Cleanup test caseJoelhttp://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000893.html

 

Aspects that should be tested more thoroughly by SQE:

  • target information for type annotations in anonymous classes and lambdas
  • bytecode offset for local variables, cast, instanceof, etc.
  • receiver parameter types and names
  • access to annotated types (expand test/tools/javac/processing/model/type/BasicAnnoTests.java)
  • No labels