Re: JSR311: Issue 44: Optional values for _at_*Param

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley_at_Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:32:08 -0400

On Jun 25, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Stephan Koops wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>> On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Marc Hadley wrote:
>>> So far I've seen one positive response to this suggestion.
>>> Personally I'm fairly ambivalent, on the one hand it seems like a
>>> nice shortcut where it will work, on the other hand the status quo
>>> is simpler to learn.
>>> Any other opinions either for or against ?
>> Will not most @*Param declarations be on method/constructor
>> parameters. If so we will be removing a static type check. Is that
>> a big deal? for these cases is it not better to report the error at
>> compile time?
> sorry, I don't see the point. Where do we remove a static type check?
Currently the compiler will complain if you omit the value of the
annotation. If we make the value optional then the compiler won't care
that you need to have a value when annotating a method parameter and
you'll only get an error when you try to load the application.


Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at>
CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.