joe.darcy at oracle.com
Wed Sep 11 00:12:05 UTC 2013
Sending along some responses to these questions from Alex:
On 8/25/2013 7:03 AM, Kasper Nielsen wrote:
> just 2 short questions/commons on java.lang.reflect.Parameter
> I was wondering if there is any reason for java.lang.reflect.Parameter not
> to expose the index field?
"Not sure what you mean by the "index field", but if you mean the
name_index item in the MethodParameters attribute, then it is possible
to know whether it's zero by calling Parameter#isNamePresent."
> Also, while Parameter.getParameterizedType() might be a better name than
> I find it kind of annoying that it is called Field.getGenericType() but
> Parameter.getParameterizedType(). Lets just have the same name for
> practically the same functionality?
"Yes and no. First, the historic use of getGenericXXX in
java.lang.reflect is wrong (it should be getParameterizedXXX) but it
can't be changed now. The Language Model API in javax.lang.model.** is
much better with terminology. Second, when we add methods to existing
java.lang.reflect types, we hold our noses and use "Generic" for
consistency, e.g., the new AnnotatedArrayType interface for type
annotations has a method getAnnotatedGenericComponentType that is
consistent with the getGenericComponentType method in GenericArrayType.
Third, when we add new types to java.lang.reflect, we use the correct
terminology, hence Parameter#getParameterizedType."
More information about the core-libs-dev