jmx-dev RFR 7199353: Allow ConstructorProperties annotation from any package

Jaroslav Bachorik jaroslav.bachorik at
Thu Oct 15 15:55:19 UTC 2015

On 14.10.2015 17:11, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> On 14.10.2015 16:52, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hm, shouldn't we name the new annotation differently then?
>>>> @ConstructorMapping ? It is not mandatory that we keep the actual
>>>> name - we are changing the package anyway ...
>>> This may have been discussed previously, Mandy might know. I think at
>>> one point that jmx-dev was thinking about matching on any @CP
>>> property and that might have influenced the naming.
>> I don’t recall any discussion on the name. The initial suggestion was
>> to match any @CP.   One benefit of keeping it @ConstructorProperties
>> is for easy migration from java.beans to
>> I don’t have strong opinion if it should be a different name.
> Using a different name could prevent any confusion about
> @j.b.ConstructorProperties
> IMO, migration should be pretty straight forward with global replace
> even if we change the annotation name.

Any objections to changing the annotation name to @ConstructorMapping to 
make it better distinguishable from @java.beans.ConstructorProperties ?


> -JB-
>> Mandy

More information about the jigsaw-dev mailing list