@Supported design issues

Joe Darcy joe.darcy at oracle.com
Sat Sep 7 22:45:50 UTC 2013

On 9/5/2013 8:23 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 2013/9/5 12:33 -0700, joe.darcy at oracle.com:
>> IMO, the high order goal here should be getting the "is this API okay to
>> use" information encoded into the source code and class files. Given
>> that you've already compiled that information, I think there is great
>> value in going forward with this effort for JDK 8 even given the
>> relatively late point in the schedule.
> Agreed.
>> Perhaps instead of "Supported", the adjective "Sanctioned" better
>> conveys what is intended: this API is explicitly part of the JDK's
>> contract and fine to use.
> @Sanctioned begs the same question as @Supported, i.e., by whom?

I don't think the answers here are that vexing; in analogy with 
@Deprecated, the party providing the type is the party providing 
information about the intended use of that type.

>> I'm open to other suggestions too.
> Well, looking ahead to when the platform will be composed of modules,
> those modules will declare that they "export" some API elements, but
> not others.  An @Exported annotation would help get people used to
> the expected future terminology.
> Just one idea, I'm sure there are others.

Thanks for the suggestion,


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list