Spec updates for method parameter reflection

Alex Buckley alex.buckley at oracle.com
Mon Nov 12 19:12:49 PST 2012

On 11/12/2012 6:53 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> I think whatever Oracle chooses will be a trendsetter. If Oracle values
> smaller class files over storing parameter names as a default, developers
> will follow the lead and not rely on the information ever being present.
> You might as well not provide the feature. It's not realistically useful if
> the extra metadata is optional.

If you follow build-infra-dev, you will see me there asking for the 
build system to compile JDK8 _with_ parameter names in the common case.

The problem in the common (non-Embedded) case is not class file size. 
It's not even exposing formerly-private names, not really. The problem 
is that no-one agrees on the opt-in mechanism. By all means run a 
whiteboard poll at Devoxx but it's fundamentally a syntax question so 
everyone has an opinion and every opinion has pro's and con's. Inside 
Oracle we have found agreement on not committing to a language mechanism 
in SE 8 - but we will still get all the plumbing in place 
(java.lang.reflect.Parameter is a lot nicer than walking 
LocalVariableTable with ASM).


More information about the enhanced-metadata-spec-discuss mailing list