[jsr294-modularity-eg] 294 EG conf call, 2009-06-17

[Neal Gafter]

>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Neal Gafter<neal at gafter.com> wrote:
> > Why is an "extensible syntax" preferred to annotations?  Annotations are
> > already extensible, and (like annotations) these extensions do not affect
> > the compile-time or runtime semantics of Java program elements.  I would
> > expect that annotations are a perfect fit for this use.
>


On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict at apache.org> wrote:

> I am just an observer :-) but I think it has something to do with the
> 'chicken and the egg' problem previously discussed. Annotations
> require a class loader, but at the time module-info.java is
> interpreted, the module boundaries (and thus accessible classes)
> haven't been determined yet.
>

And yet somehow the compiler (and runtime) manage to find the implementation
of the module system without a problem.

That leads me to conclude that they can be capable of resolving the
annotation types defined by the module system as well.  Annotations that
can't be resolved early could be deferred and resolved later.  The compiler
and runtime already resolve annotations lazily, so no significant
architectural change would be needed.

Cheers,
Neal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/jsr294-modularity-observer/attachments/20090624/be4ebedf/attachment.html>