View Source

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

Issue	Next responsible	Email thread
Receiver parameter name	EG, 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 API	wmdietl	Provide nicer integration of receiver parameters: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000797.html
Method/Constructor distinction	EG	A 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 names	wmdietl	Ensure recent discussion is implemented: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-spec-experts/2013-April/000113.html
JLS Creator production	EG, 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 case	Joel, Steve	http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000893.html http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000867.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)