RFR(m): 8145468 deprecations for java.lang
david.holmes at oracle.com
Sun Apr 17 23:05:05 UTC 2016
On 14/04/2016 11:50 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Hi all,
> Please review this first round of deprecation changes for the java.lang
> package. This changeset includes the following:
> - a set of APIs being newly deprecated
> - a set of already-deprecated APIs that are "upgraded" to forRemoval=true
> - addition of the "since" element to all deprecations
> - cleanup of some of the warnings caused by new deprecations
> The newly deprecated APIs include all of the constructors for the boxed
> primitives. We don't intend to remove these yet, so they don't declare a
> value for the forRemoval element, implying the default value of false.
> The constructors being deprecated are as follows:
> The methods being deprecated with forRemoval=true are listed below. All
> of these methods have already been deprecated. They are all ill-defined,
> or they don't work, or they don't do anything useful.
> SecurityManager.checkMemberAccess(Class<?>, int)
Surprised Thread.suspend/resume are not marked for removal given they
are effectively unusable.
> Most of the files in the changeset are cleanups. Some of them are simply
> the addition of the "since" element to the @Deprecated annotation, to
> indicate the version in which the API became deprecated.
> The rest of the changes are cleanup of warnings that were created by the
> deprecation of the boxed primitive constructors. There are a total of a
> couple hundred such uses sprinkled around the JDK. I've taken care of a
> portion of them, with the exception of the java.desktop module, which
> alone has over 100 uses of boxed primitive constructors. I've disabled
> deprecation warnings for the java.desktop module for the time being;
> these uses can be cleaned up later. I've filed JDK-8154213 to cover this
> cleanup task.
> For the warnings cleanups I did, I mostly did conversions of the form:
> new Double(dval)
> This is a very safe transformation. It changes the behavior only in the
> cases where the code relies on getting a new instance of the box object
> instead of one that might come out of a cache. I didn't see any such
> code (and I should hope there's no such code in the JDK!).
> I applied autoboxing only sparingly, in the cases where it was an
> obviously safe thing to do, or where nearby code already uses
> autoboxing. Autoboxing actually generates a call to the appropriate
> valueOf() method, so the bytecode would be the same in most cases. The
> only difference is clutter in the source code. On the other hand,
> there's some risk in converting to autoboxing, as the implicitly
> autoboxed type might end up different from an explicit call to
> valueOf(). This isn't always obvious, so that's why I mostly avoided
More information about the core-libs-dev