http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8202334.0/         
            https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202335         
        
        From the CSR: 
        
        The `javax.lang.model` API was added in           Java SE 6. In each of Java SE 7, 8, and 9, new sets of utility           visitors were added for each release, for example starting           with `AbstractElementVisitor6`, types           `AbstractElementVisitor7`, `AbstractElementVisitor8`,           `AbstractElementVisitor8` were added in SE 7 and 8,           respectively. Similar patterns were followed for           `ElementKindVisitor6`, and the rest of the utility visitors. 
          
          In Java SE 10, there were no language changes requiring new           operational behavior from the root visitors. Therefore, rather           than introducing yet another slate of visitor classes, the           9-era visitors were updated to indicate they are appropriate           for 10 as well (CCC-8193194). 
          
          In the absence of language changes in 11 which would require           new operational behavior from the visitors, the 9-era visitors           should be updated to indicate they are appropriate for           releases 9 through 11. 
          
          Solution 
          -------- 
          Update the specification and `SupportedSourceVersion`           annotations on the 9-era visitor classes to indicate they are           appropriate for release 11. 
                 
        Thanks, 
        
        -Joe 
        
             
         
   ">

(original) (raw)

Hi Jon,

On 5/1/2018 1:15 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:

OK, for the non-white content :-) but a minor nit regarding whitespace. Many of the affected comments are inconsistent with the use of

after a blank line in the comment. Is this intentional?


It is intentional. I often prefer to have each sentence appear with whitespace around it in the javadoc sources to make future edits have less "by catch" of spurious updates to surrounding text.

Thanks,

\-Joe

See this file, as an example:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/\~darcy/8202334.0/src/java.compiler/share/classes/javax/lang/model/util/TypeKindVisitor9.java.sdiff.html

and this extract:

 34 \* A visitor of types based on their {@linkplain TypeKind kind} with  
 35 \* default behavior appropriate for source versions {@link  
 36 \* SourceVersion#RELEASE\_9 RELEASE\_9} through {@link  
 37 \* SourceVersion#RELEASE\_11 RELEASE\_11}.  
 38 \*  
 39 \* For {@linkplain  
 40 \* TypeMirror types} Xyz that may have more than one  
 41 \* kind, the visitXyz methods in this class delegate  
 42 \* to the visitXyzAsKind method corresponding to the  
 43 \* first argument's kind. The visitXyzAsKind methods  
 44 \* call {@link #defaultAction defaultAction}, passing their arguments  
 45 \* to {@code defaultAction}'s corresponding parameters.  
 46 \*  
 47 \* 
 Methods in this class may be overridden subject to their  
 48 \* general contract. Note that annotating methods in concrete  
 49 \* subclasses with {@link java.lang.Override @Override} will help  
 50 \* ensure that methods are overridden as intended.
Note that lines 38 and 46 are blank, but 39 does not use

but 47 does.

\-- Jon



On 4/26/18 10:50 AM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,

Please review the webrev and CSR for 8202334: "Update javax.lang.model.util visitors for 11":

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/\~darcy/8202334.0/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202335

From the CSR:

The \`javax.lang.model\` API was added in Java SE 6\. In each of Java SE 7, 8, and 9, new sets of utility visitors were added for each release, for example starting with \`AbstractElementVisitor6\`, types \`AbstractElementVisitor7\`, \`AbstractElementVisitor8\`, \`AbstractElementVisitor8\` were added in SE 7 and 8, respectively. Similar patterns were followed for \`ElementKindVisitor6\`, and the rest of the utility visitors.

In Java SE 10, there were no language changes requiring new operational behavior from the root visitors. Therefore, rather than introducing yet another slate of visitor classes, the 9-era visitors were updated to indicate they are appropriate for 10 as well (CCC-8193194).

In the absence of language changes in 11 which would require new operational behavior from the visitors, the 9-era visitors should be updated to indicate they are appropriate for releases 9 through 11\.

Solution
\--------
Update the specification and \`SupportedSourceVersion\` annotations on the 9-era visitor classes to indicate they are appropriate for release 11\.

Thanks,

\-Joe