On 9/24/19 4:07 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
Question - should RecordComponent extend java.lang.reflect.Member
(after all, it has a name and a type). Not 100% sure.
good question, I would say yes, we can say that record components are
members of the class, but I'm not 100% sure either
Maurizio
Vicente
On 24/09/2019 20:33, Alex Buckley wrote:
At first glance, this is sensible because of the first-class status
in the JLS of record components and their mapping to accessors.
Based on a check of other implementations of AnnotatedElement,
consider `boolean isVarArgs()` (IIRC a varargs component will be
allowed) and `String toGenericString()`.
Alex
On 9/24/2019 12:05 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
Hi amber experts,
We are considering our next move in the reflection area for records.
It will be hoisting record components to a first class status in the
reflection engine. Our current proposal is to define a new class
named: java.lang.reflect.RecordComponent which will will be roughly
defined as:
public final class RecordComponent implements AnnotatedElement {
private String name;
private Class<?> type;
private Method accessor;
public String getName() { return name; }
public Class<?> getType() { return type; }
public Type getGenericType() {...}
public AnnotatedType getAnnotatedType() {....}
public Method getAccessor() { return accessor; }
}
Along with this change we are also proposing changes to
java.lang.Class. Our proposal there is to remove current method:
java.lang.Class::getRecordAccessors and add a new method named:
java.lang.Class::getRecordComponents which will return a array of
java.lang.reflect.RecordComponents. Thanks in advance for sharing
any feedback on this proposal,
Vicente
