RFR: implementation for JEP 334: JVM Constants API
vicente.romero at oracle.com
Wed May 23 19:37:11 UTC 2018
On 05/23/2018 03:10 PM, jbvernee wrote:
> (I hope this email comes out alright, since I'm using raw text
> There seems to be an error in the generated javadoc.
> If you go to the javadoc of, for instance, `ConstantClassDesc` 
> you'll see that it lists `Constable<Class<?>>` as one of the
> implemented interfaces.
> Looking at the source code, this seems to be pulled down from the
> `ClassDesc` interface ,
> which does extend `Constable`. The problem is, it does not extends
> but `Constable<ConstantDesc<Class<?>>>`, so this `Constable<Class<?>>`
> super interface of
> `ConstantClassDesc` seems to be an error and it should list
> `Constable<ConstantDesc<Class<?>>` instead.
I will check this, thanks!
> A similar problem exists with the javadoc for this
> `ConstantMethodHandleDesc` and `ConstantMethodTypeDesc` classes.
> (Reading this for the first time confused me for quite a while, actually)
> Some other nitty remarks/questions are:
> - Why is the package name `java.lang.invoke.constant` and not
package java.lang.invoke is the space used for the classes that define
the interaction between the JDK and the JVM and the new constants are a
> The constants API is not just an extension/sub-component of the
> `invoke` API, is it?
> - Shouldn't the abbreviation `Desc`, by changed to the full name
yep, could be, I guess it's a matter of choosing between very
descriptive names and shorter ones, mostly a matter of style
> Using full names seems more proper + abbreviations can be ambiguous.
> Jorn Vernee
More information about the amber-dev