Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

paulk_asert

There has been discussion on and off about making @Immutable a meta-annotation (annotation collector) in much the same way as @Canonical was re-vamped. (This is for 2.5+).

I have a preliminary PR which does this:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/653

Preliminary because it still needs a bit of refactoring to reduce some duplication of code that exists between the normal and immutable map and tuple constructors. I still need to do this but that can happen transparently behind the scenes as an implementation detail if we don't finish it straight away. As well as reducing duplication, the pending refactoring will enable things like the pre and post options for MapConstructor and TupleConstructor which aren't currently working.

I am keen on any feedback at this point. In particular, while most of the functionality is pushed off into the collected annotations/transforms, I ended up with some left over checks which I kept in an annotation currently called @ImmutableClass. I tried various names for this class, e.g. @ImmutableBase and @ImmutableCheck but finally settled on @ImmutableClass since the annotation causes the preliminary checks to be performed but also acts as a marker interface for the MapConstructor and TupleConstructor transforms to do the alternate code needed for immutability and to indicate that a class is immutable when it might itself be a property of another immutable class. Let me know if you can think of a better name or have any other feedback.

Cheers, Paul.

MG
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

MG
Hi Paul,

great to make @Immutable more fine granular / flexible :-)

what about 
@ImmutabilityChecked
or
@ImmutableCore
instead of @ImmutableClass ?

Cheers
mg

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King <[hidden email]>
Datum: 11.01.18 08:07 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation


There has been discussion on and off about making @Immutable a meta-annotation (annotation collector) in much the same way as @Canonical was re-vamped. (This is for 2.5+).

I have a preliminary PR which does this:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/653

Preliminary because it still needs a bit of refactoring to reduce some duplication of code that exists between the normal and immutable map and tuple constructors. I still need to do this but that can happen transparently behind the scenes as an implementation detail if we don't finish it straight away. As well as reducing duplication, the pending refactoring will enable things like the pre and post options for MapConstructor and TupleConstructor which aren't currently working.

I am keen on any feedback at this point. In particular, while most of the functionality is pushed off into the collected annotations/transforms, I ended up with some left over checks which I kept in an annotation currently called @ImmutableClass. I tried various names for this class, e.g. @ImmutableBase and @ImmutableCheck but finally settled on @ImmutableClass since the annotation causes the preliminary checks to be performed but also acts as a marker interface for the MapConstructor and TupleConstructor transforms to do the alternate code needed for immutability and to indicate that a class is immutable when it might itself be a property of another immutable class. Let me know if you can think of a better name or have any other feedback.

Cheers, Paul.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

paulk_asert
In reply to this post by paulk_asert
@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase - probably okay but I don't think ideal. Another alternative would be @ImmutableInfo or have an explicit marker interface with a different package, e.g. groovy.transform.marker.Immutable but that might cause IDE completion headaches. Perhaps @KnownImmutable as a straight marker interface might be the way to go - then it could be used explicitly on manually created immutable classes and avoid the need to use the knownImmutableClasses/knownImmutables annotation attributes for that case.

Cheers, Paul.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:34 PM, mg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

great to make @Immutable more fine granular / flexible :-)

what about 
@ImmutabilityChecked
or
@ImmutableCore
instead of @ImmutableClass ?

Cheers
mg

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King <[hidden email]>
Datum: 11.01.18 08:07 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation


There has been discussion on and off about making @Immutable a meta-annotation (annotation collector) in much the same way as @Canonical was re-vamped. (This is for 2.5+).

I have a preliminary PR which does this:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/653

Preliminary because it still needs a bit of refactoring to reduce some duplication of code that exists between the normal and immutable map and tuple constructors. I still need to do this but that can happen transparently behind the scenes as an implementation detail if we don't finish it straight away. As well as reducing duplication, the pending refactoring will enable things like the pre and post options for MapConstructor and TupleConstructor which aren't currently working.

I am keen on any feedback at this point. In particular, while most of the functionality is pushed off into the collected annotations/transforms, I ended up with some left over checks which I kept in an annotation currently called @ImmutableClass. I tried various names for this class, e.g. @ImmutableBase and @ImmutableCheck but finally settled on @ImmutableClass since the annotation causes the preliminary checks to be performed but also acts as a marker interface for the MapConstructor and TupleConstructor transforms to do the alternate code needed for immutability and to indicate that a class is immutable when it might itself be a property of another immutable class. Let me know if you can think of a better name or have any other feedback.

Cheers, Paul.


MG
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

MG
Hi Paul,

I think the core of the problem is, that @Immutable as a meta-annotation woud be better off being called something along the line of @ImmutableCanonical (see: If you do no need the immutability, use @Canonical), since it does not solely supply immutability support - then it would be natural to call the actual core immutability annotation just "Immutable".

That is probably off the table, since it would be a breaking change - so we are stuck with the problem of naming the immutability annotation part something else.

@ImmutableClass would imply to me that the "Class" part carries some meaning, which I feel it does not, since
a) "Class" could be postfixed to any annotation name that applies to classes
b) The meta-annotation should accordingly also be called "ImmutableClass"
Because of that I find postfixing "Immutable" with "Class" just confusing. It also is not intuitive to me, which annotation does only supply the core, and which supplies the extended (canonical) functionality...

I do not understand where you are going with @KnownImmutable (known to whom ?-) To me this seems less intuitive/more confusing than @ImmutableClass...).

@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase (because I intentionally based it on it :-) ), but different in the sense that it imho expresses the semantics of the annotation: Making the object purely immutable-only, without any constructors, toString functionality, etc.

How about:
@ImmutableOnly
@PureImmutable
@ModificationProtected

@Locked
@Frozen

@Unchangeable
@Changeless

@InitOnly
@InitializeOnly

@Constant
@Const

@NonModifieable
@NonChangeable

?
mg


On 12.01.2018 08:01, Paul King wrote:
@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase - probably okay but I don't think ideal. Another alternative would be @ImmutableInfo or have an explicit marker interface with a different package, e.g. groovy.transform.marker.Immutable but that might cause IDE completion headaches. Perhaps @KnownImmutable as a straight marker interface might be the way to go - then it could be used explicitly on manually created immutable classes and avoid the need to use the knownImmutableClasses/knownImmutables annotation attributes for that case.

Cheers, Paul.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:34 PM, mg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

great to make @Immutable more fine granular / flexible :-)

what about 
@ImmutabilityChecked
or
@ImmutableCore
instead of @ImmutableClass ?

Cheers
mg

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King <[hidden email]>
Datum: 11.01.18 08:07 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation


There has been discussion on and off about making @Immutable a meta-annotation (annotation collector) in much the same way as @Canonical was re-vamped. (This is for 2.5+).

I have a preliminary PR which does this:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/653

Preliminary because it still needs a bit of refactoring to reduce some duplication of code that exists between the normal and immutable map and tuple constructors. I still need to do this but that can happen transparently behind the scenes as an implementation detail if we don't finish it straight away. As well as reducing duplication, the pending refactoring will enable things like the pre and post options for MapConstructor and TupleConstructor which aren't currently working.

I am keen on any feedback at this point. In particular, while most of the functionality is pushed off into the collected annotations/transforms, I ended up with some left over checks which I kept in an annotation currently called @ImmutableClass. I tried various names for this class, e.g. @ImmutableBase and @ImmutableCheck but finally settled on @ImmutableClass since the annotation causes the preliminary checks to be performed but also acts as a marker interface for the MapConstructor and TupleConstructor transforms to do the alternate code needed for immutability and to indicate that a class is immutable when it might itself be a property of another immutable class. Let me know if you can think of a better name or have any other feedback.

Cheers, Paul.



MG
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

MG
Hi Paul,

now I get where you are coming from with @KnownImmutable. I agree with splitting the two concepts: Flexible & elegant :-)

Transferring the parameter name knownImmutables (which exists inside the @Immutable context) to the annotation name KnownImmutable (which has no such context) still does not work for me, though.
In addition having @Immutable = @KnownImmutable + @ImmutableBase violates the definition you give for @KnownImmutable, because either the class is "known to be immutable" = "immutable by implementation by the developer", or it becomes immutable through @ImmutableBase & Groovy...

What do you think about:
@IsImmutable
@ImmutableContract
@GuaranteedImmutable
instead
?

Thinking about this some more, still don't like @ImmutableBase. Sounds too much like a base class to me - and what would be the "base" functionality of being immutable ? Something either is immutable, or not (@ImmutableCore also fails in this regard ;-) ).
So still would prefer @ImmutableOnly o.s. ...

Cheers,
mg


-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King [hidden email]
Datum: 13.01.18 13:17 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

I should have explained the @KnownImmutable idea a bit more. I guess I was thinking about several possibilities for that in parallel. What I really think is the way to go though is to split out the two different aspects that I was trying to capture. One is triggering the AST transformation, the other is a runtime marker of immutability. With that in mind I'd suggest the following:

@KnownImmutable will be a marker interface and nothing more. Any class having that annotation will be deemed immutable.
E.g. if I write my own Address class and I know it's immutable I can mark it as such:

@KnownImmutable
class Address {
  Address(String value) { this.value = value }
  final String value
}

Now if I have:

@Immutable
class Person {
  String name
  Address address
}

Then the processing associated with @Immutable won't complain about a potentially mutable "Address" field.

Then we can just leave @ImmutableBase (or similar) as the AST transform to kick off the initial processing needed for immutable classes.
The @Immutable annotation collector would be replaced by the constructor annotations, ToString, EqualsAndHashcode and both ImmutableBase and KnownImmutable.
The name KnownImmutable matches existing functionality. Two alternatives to annotating Address with KnownImmutable that already exist would be using the following annotation attributes on @Immutable:
@Immutable(knownImmutableClasses=[Address]) or @Immutable(knownImmutables=[address]).

Cheers, Paul.



On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 1:43 PM, MG <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

I think the core of the problem is, that @Immutable as a meta-annotation woud be better off being called something along the line of @ImmutableCanonical (see: If you do no need the immutability, use @Canonical), since it does not solely supply immutability support - then it would be natural to call the actual core immutability annotation just "Immutable".

That is probably off the table, since it would be a breaking change - so we are stuck with the problem of naming the immutability annotation part something else.

@ImmutableClass would imply to me that the "Class" part carries some meaning, which I feel it does not, since
a) "Class" could be postfixed to any annotation name that applies to classes
b) The meta-annotation should accordingly also be called "ImmutableClass"
Because of that I find postfixing "Immutable" with "Class" just confusing. It also is not intuitive to me, which annotation does only supply the core, and which supplies the extended (canonical) functionality...

I do not understand where you are going with @KnownImmutable (known to whom ?-) To me this seems less intuitive/more confusing than @ImmutableClass...).

@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase (because I intentionally based it on it :-) ), but different in the sense that it imho expresses the semantics of the annotation: Making the object purely immutable-only, without any constructors, toString functionality, etc.

How about:
@ImmutableOnly
@PureImmutable
@ModificationProtected

@Locked
@Frozen

@Unchangeable
@Changeless

@InitOnly
@InitializeOnly

@Constant
@Const

@NonModifieable
@NonChangeable

?
mg



On 12.01.2018 08:01, Paul King wrote:
@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase - probably okay but I don't think ideal. Another alternative would be @ImmutableInfo or have an explicit marker interface with a different package, e.g. groovy.transform.marker.Immutable but that might cause IDE completion headaches. Perhaps @KnownImmutable as a straight marker interface might be the way to go - then it could be used explicitly on manually created immutable classes and avoid the need to use the knownImmutableClasses/knownImmutables annotation attributes for that case.

Cheers, Paul.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:34 PM, mg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

great to make @Immutable more fine granular / flexible :-)

what about 
@ImmutabilityChecked
or
@ImmutableCore
instead of @ImmutableClass ?

Cheers
mg

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King <[hidden email]>
Datum: 11.01.18 08:07 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation


There has been discussion on and off about making @Immutable a meta-annotation (annotation collector) in much the same way as @Canonical was re-vamped. (This is for 2.5+).

I have a preliminary PR which does this:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/653

Preliminary because it still needs a bit of refactoring to reduce some duplication of code that exists between the normal and immutable map and tuple constructors. I still need to do this but that can happen transparently behind the scenes as an implementation detail if we don't finish it straight away. As well as reducing duplication, the pending refactoring will enable things like the pre and post options for MapConstructor and TupleConstructor which aren't currently working.

I am keen on any feedback at this point. In particular, while most of the functionality is pushed off into the collected annotations/transforms, I ended up with some left over checks which I kept in an annotation currently called @ImmutableClass. I tried various names for this class, e.g. @ImmutableBase and @ImmutableCheck but finally settled on @ImmutableClass since the annotation causes the preliminary checks to be performed but also acts as a marker interface for the MapConstructor and TupleConstructor transforms to do the alternate code needed for immutability and to indicate that a class is immutable when it might itself be a property of another immutable class. Let me know if you can think of a better name or have any other feedback.

Cheers, Paul.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

paulk_asert

Response below.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:11 AM, MG <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

now I get where you are coming from with @KnownImmutable. I agree with splitting the two concepts: Flexible & elegant :-)

Transferring the parameter name knownImmutables (which exists inside the @Immutable context) to the annotation name KnownImmutable (which has no such context) still does not work for me, though.
In addition having @Immutable = @KnownImmutable + @ImmutableBase violates the definition you give for @KnownImmutable, because either the class is "known to be immutable" = "immutable by implementation by the developer", or it becomes immutable through @ImmutableBase & Groovy...

Well that is perhaps an indication that it needs to be explained better rather than necessarily a bad name. I'll try again. It just means that someone (the compiler or the developer) knows that it is immutable. If that marker interface is on the class there is no need to look further inside the class, you can assume it is vouched for as immutable. Once @ImmutableBase (or whatever name) processing has finished its checks, it can then vouch for the class and puts the marker interface "rubber stamp" on it.
 
What do you think about:
@IsImmutable
@ImmutableContract
@GuaranteedImmutable
instead
?

Thinking about this some more, still don't like @ImmutableBase. Sounds too much like a base class to me - and what would be the "base" functionality of being immutable ? Something either is immutable, or not (@ImmutableCore also fails in this regard ;-) ).
So still would prefer @ImmutableOnly o.s. ..

@ImmutableOnly indicates that it is somehow immutable at that point - it isn't really a finished immutable class until all the other related transforms have done their thing. Perhaps it is useful to reiterate what it does. It does a whole pile of validation (you can't have public fields, you can't have certain annotation attributes on some of the other annotations that wouldn't make sense for an immutable object, you can't have your own constructors, it can't be applied on interfaces, it checks spelling of property names referenced in annotation attributes) plus some preliminary changes (makes class final, ensures properties have a final private backing field and a getter but no setter, makes a copyWith constructor if needed). These changes alone don't guarantee immutability. Would you prefer @ImmutablePrelim?
 
Cheers,
mg


-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King [hidden email]
Datum: 13.01.18 13:17 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

I should have explained the @KnownImmutable idea a bit more. I guess I was thinking about several possibilities for that in parallel. What I really think is the way to go though is to split out the two different aspects that I was trying to capture. One is triggering the AST transformation, the other is a runtime marker of immutability. With that in mind I'd suggest the following:

@KnownImmutable will be a marker interface and nothing more. Any class having that annotation will be deemed immutable.
E.g. if I write my own Address class and I know it's immutable I can mark it as such:

@KnownImmutable
class Address {
  Address(String value) { this.value = value }
  final String value
}

Now if I have:

@Immutable
class Person {
  String name
  Address address
}

Then the processing associated with @Immutable won't complain about a potentially mutable "Address" field.

Then we can just leave @ImmutableBase (or similar) as the AST transform to kick off the initial processing needed for immutable classes.
The @Immutable annotation collector would be replaced by the constructor annotations, ToString, EqualsAndHashcode and both ImmutableBase and KnownImmutable.
The name KnownImmutable matches existing functionality. Two alternatives to annotating Address with KnownImmutable that already exist would be using the following annotation attributes on @Immutable:
@Immutable(knownImmutableClasses=[Address]) or @Immutable(knownImmutables=[address]).

Cheers, Paul.



On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 1:43 PM, MG <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

I think the core of the problem is, that @Immutable as a meta-annotation woud be better off being called something along the line of @ImmutableCanonical (see: If you do no need the immutability, use @Canonical), since it does not solely supply immutability support - then it would be natural to call the actual core immutability annotation just "Immutable".

That is probably off the table, since it would be a breaking change - so we are stuck with the problem of naming the immutability annotation part something else.

@ImmutableClass would imply to me that the "Class" part carries some meaning, which I feel it does not, since
a) "Class" could be postfixed to any annotation name that applies to classes
b) The meta-annotation should accordingly also be called "ImmutableClass"
Because of that I find postfixing "Immutable" with "Class" just confusing. It also is not intuitive to me, which annotation does only supply the core, and which supplies the extended (canonical) functionality...

I do not understand where you are going with @KnownImmutable (known to whom ?-) To me this seems less intuitive/more confusing than @ImmutableClass...).

@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase (because I intentionally based it on it :-) ), but different in the sense that it imho expresses the semantics of the annotation: Making the object purely immutable-only, without any constructors, toString functionality, etc.

How about:
@ImmutableOnly
@PureImmutable
@ModificationProtected

@Locked
@Frozen

@Unchangeable
@Changeless

@InitOnly
@InitializeOnly

@Constant
@Const

@NonModifieable
@NonChangeable

?
mg



On 12.01.2018 08:01, Paul King wrote:
@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase - probably okay but I don't think ideal. Another alternative would be @ImmutableInfo or have an explicit marker interface with a different package, e.g. groovy.transform.marker.Immutable but that might cause IDE completion headaches. Perhaps @KnownImmutable as a straight marker interface might be the way to go - then it could be used explicitly on manually created immutable classes and avoid the need to use the knownImmutableClasses/knownImmutables annotation attributes for that case.

Cheers, Paul.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:34 PM, mg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

great to make @Immutable more fine granular / flexible :-)

what about 
@ImmutabilityChecked
or
@ImmutableCore
instead of @ImmutableClass ?

Cheers
mg

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King <[hidden email]>
Datum: 11.01.18 08:07 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation


There has been discussion on and off about making @Immutable a meta-annotation (annotation collector) in much the same way as @Canonical was re-vamped. (This is for 2.5+).

I have a preliminary PR which does this:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/653

Preliminary because it still needs a bit of refactoring to reduce some duplication of code that exists between the normal and immutable map and tuple constructors. I still need to do this but that can happen transparently behind the scenes as an implementation detail if we don't finish it straight away. As well as reducing duplication, the pending refactoring will enable things like the pre and post options for MapConstructor and TupleConstructor which aren't currently working.

I am keen on any feedback at this point. In particular, while most of the functionality is pushed off into the collected annotations/transforms, I ended up with some left over checks which I kept in an annotation currently called @ImmutableClass. I tried various names for this class, e.g. @ImmutableBase and @ImmutableCheck but finally settled on @ImmutableClass since the annotation causes the preliminary checks to be performed but also acts as a marker interface for the MapConstructor and TupleConstructor transforms to do the alternate code needed for immutability and to indicate that a class is immutable when it might itself be a property of another immutable class. Let me know if you can think of a better name or have any other feedback.

Cheers, Paul.





MG
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

MG
Hi Paul,

1) for me, if you have to explain a name better, then it is already a bad name. Intuitively suggesting the correct interpretation to another developer, without requiring him to thoroughly read through the documentation, is the art of picking good names (which imho Groovy overall does a good job at).
With regards to @KnownImmutable, "someone (the compiler or the developer) knows" is even more confusing. If it is in fact irrelevant who knows it, why is there a "Known" in the name in the first place ? And why is therefore e.g. @IsImmutable not a better name (it could also carry a parameter which can be true or false, with false allowing a developer to express that a class is definitely not immutable (even if it might look that way on first glance; e.g. effectively blocking or issuing a warning in certain parallel execution scenarios)).

2) There seems to be a contradiction in your statements: You say that "Once @ImmutableBase (or whatever name) processing has finished its checks, it can then vouch for the class and puts the marker interface [@KnownImmutable] "rubber stamp" on it", but further down you say that "These changes [that @ImmutableBase applies] alone don't guarantee immutability.". Is it a "known immutable" after @ImmutableBase has done its thing, or not ?

3) If I did not miss something the new @Immutable meta annotation is made up of the following annotations:
@ImmutableBase
@KnownImmutable
@ToString
@EqualsAndHashCode
@MapConstructor
@TupleConstructor

How is any of the last four necessary for a class to be immutable ? Immutability to me means, that the state of the class cannot be changed after it has been created. How are @ToString, @EqualsAndHashCode, @MapConstructor, and @TupleConstructor helping with this ?
At least one ctor to initialize the class fields is basically necessary to make this a practically usable immutable class, yes, but @IsImmutable it must be after @ImmutableBase does its job, or it will not be immutable in the end. All the other annotations are just icing on the cake (see "@Immutable should be named @ImmutableCanonical").

If you keep @ImmutableBase, at least consider replacing @KnownImmutable with @GuaranteedImmutableTag or @GuaranteedImmutableMarker ? The "Tag" or "Marker" postfix at least expresses that this annotation just tags the class as having certain properties, and that this is a general fact, and not only known to developers or compilers in the know...

I hope I do not completely miss your point, but this is how it looks to me from what I read :-),
Cheers,
mg


On 15.01.2018 14:08, Paul King wrote:

Response below.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:11 AM, MG <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

now I get where you are coming from with @KnownImmutable. I agree with splitting the two concepts: Flexible & elegant :-)

Transferring the parameter name knownImmutables (which exists inside the @Immutable context) to the annotation name KnownImmutable (which has no such context) still does not work for me, though.
In addition having @Immutable = @KnownImmutable + @ImmutableBase violates the definition you give for @KnownImmutable, because either the class is "known to be immutable" = "immutable by implementation by the developer", or it becomes immutable through @ImmutableBase & Groovy...

Well that is perhaps an indication that it needs to be explained better rather than necessarily a bad name. I'll try again. It just means that someone (the compiler or the developer) knows that it is immutable. If that marker interface is on the class there is no need to look further inside the class, you can assume it is vouched for as immutable. Once @ImmutableBase (or whatever name) processing has finished its checks, it can then vouch for the class and puts the marker interface "rubber stamp" on it.
 
What do you think about:
@IsImmutable
@ImmutableContract
@GuaranteedImmutable
instead
?

Thinking about this some more, still don't like @ImmutableBase. Sounds too much like a base class to me - and what would be the "base" functionality of being immutable ? Something either is immutable, or not (@ImmutableCore also fails in this regard ;-) ).
So still would prefer @ImmutableOnly o.s. ..

@ImmutableOnly indicates that it is somehow immutable at that point - it isn't really a finished immutable class until all the other related transforms have done their thing. Perhaps it is useful to reiterate what it does. It does a whole pile of validation (you can't have public fields, you can't have certain annotation attributes on some of the other annotations that wouldn't make sense for an immutable object, you can't have your own constructors, it can't be applied on interfaces, it checks spelling of property names referenced in annotation attributes) plus some preliminary changes (makes class final, ensures properties have a final private backing field and a getter but no setter, makes a copyWith constructor if needed). These changes alone don't guarantee immutability. Would you prefer @ImmutablePrelim?
 
Cheers,
mg


-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King [hidden email]
Datum: 13.01.18 13:17 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

I should have explained the @KnownImmutable idea a bit more. I guess I was thinking about several possibilities for that in parallel. What I really think is the way to go though is to split out the two different aspects that I was trying to capture. One is triggering the AST transformation, the other is a runtime marker of immutability. With that in mind I'd suggest the following:

@KnownImmutable will be a marker interface and nothing more. Any class having that annotation will be deemed immutable.
E.g. if I write my own Address class and I know it's immutable I can mark it as such:

@KnownImmutable
class Address {
  Address(String value) { this.value = value }
  final String value
}

Now if I have:

@Immutable
class Person {
  String name
  Address address
}

Then the processing associated with @Immutable won't complain about a potentially mutable "Address" field.

Then we can just leave @ImmutableBase (or similar) as the AST transform to kick off the initial processing needed for immutable classes.
The @Immutable annotation collector would be replaced by the constructor annotations, ToString, EqualsAndHashcode and both ImmutableBase and KnownImmutable.
The name KnownImmutable matches existing functionality. Two alternatives to annotating Address with KnownImmutable that already exist would be using the following annotation attributes on @Immutable:
@Immutable(knownImmutableClasses=[Address]) or @Immutable(knownImmutables=[address]).

Cheers, Paul.



On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 1:43 PM, MG <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

I think the core of the problem is, that @Immutable as a meta-annotation woud be better off being called something along the line of @ImmutableCanonical (see: If you do no need the immutability, use @Canonical), since it does not solely supply immutability support - then it would be natural to call the actual core immutability annotation just "Immutable".

That is probably off the table, since it would be a breaking change - so we are stuck with the problem of naming the immutability annotation part something else.

@ImmutableClass would imply to me that the "Class" part carries some meaning, which I feel it does not, since
a) "Class" could be postfixed to any annotation name that applies to classes
b) The meta-annotation should accordingly also be called "ImmutableClass"
Because of that I find postfixing "Immutable" with "Class" just confusing. It also is not intuitive to me, which annotation does only supply the core, and which supplies the extended (canonical) functionality...

I do not understand where you are going with @KnownImmutable (known to whom ?-) To me this seems less intuitive/more confusing than @ImmutableClass...).

@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase (because I intentionally based it on it :-) ), but different in the sense that it imho expresses the semantics of the annotation: Making the object purely immutable-only, without any constructors, toString functionality, etc.

How about:
@ImmutableOnly
@PureImmutable
@ModificationProtected

@Locked
@Frozen

@Unchangeable
@Changeless

@InitOnly
@InitializeOnly

@Constant
@Const

@NonModifieable
@NonChangeable

?
mg



On 12.01.2018 08:01, Paul King wrote:
@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase - probably okay but I don't think ideal. Another alternative would be @ImmutableInfo or have an explicit marker interface with a different package, e.g. groovy.transform.marker.Immutable but that might cause IDE completion headaches. Perhaps @KnownImmutable as a straight marker interface might be the way to go - then it could be used explicitly on manually created immutable classes and avoid the need to use the knownImmutableClasses/knownImmutables annotation attributes for that case.

Cheers, Paul.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:34 PM, mg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

great to make @Immutable more fine granular / flexible :-)

what about 
@ImmutabilityChecked
or
@ImmutableCore
instead of @ImmutableClass ?

Cheers
mg

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King <[hidden email]>
Datum: 11.01.18 08:07 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation


There has been discussion on and off about making @Immutable a meta-annotation (annotation collector) in much the same way as @Canonical was re-vamped. (This is for 2.5+).

I have a preliminary PR which does this:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/653

Preliminary because it still needs a bit of refactoring to reduce some duplication of code that exists between the normal and immutable map and tuple constructors. I still need to do this but that can happen transparently behind the scenes as an implementation detail if we don't finish it straight away. As well as reducing duplication, the pending refactoring will enable things like the pre and post options for MapConstructor and TupleConstructor which aren't currently working.

I am keen on any feedback at this point. In particular, while most of the functionality is pushed off into the collected annotations/transforms, I ended up with some left over checks which I kept in an annotation currently called @ImmutableClass. I tried various names for this class, e.g. @ImmutableBase and @ImmutableCheck but finally settled on @ImmutableClass since the annotation causes the preliminary checks to be performed but also acts as a marker interface for the MapConstructor and TupleConstructor transforms to do the alternate code needed for immutability and to indicate that a class is immutable when it might itself be a property of another immutable class. Let me know if you can think of a better name or have any other feedback.

Cheers, Paul.






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

paulk_asert
Explanations below.

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:56 AM, MG <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

1) for me, if you have to explain a name better, then it is already a bad name. Intuitively suggesting the correct interpretation to another developer, without requiring him to thoroughly read through the documentation, is the art of picking good names (which imho Groovy overall does a good job at).
With regards to @KnownImmutable, "someone (the compiler or the developer) knows" is even more confusing. If it is in fact irrelevant who knows it, why is there a "Known" in the name in the first place ? And why is therefore e.g. @IsImmutable not a better name (it could also carry a parameter which can be true or false, with false allowing a developer to express that a class is definitely not immutable (even if it might look that way on first glance; e.g. effectively blocking or issuing a warning in certain parallel execution scenarios)).

We have since the introduction of @Immutable used the knownImmutable and knownImmutableClasses annotation attributes and people seem to grok what they mean. This is a very similar use case. I think it would be hard to justify renaming @KnownImmutable without renaming the annotation attributes as well.
 
2) There seems to be a contradiction in your statements: You say that "Once @ImmutableBase (or whatever name) processing has finished its checks, it can then vouch for the class and puts the marker interface [@KnownImmutable] "rubber stamp" on it", but further down you say that "These changes [that @ImmutableBase applies] alone don't guarantee immutability.". Is it a "known immutable" after @ImmutableBase has done its thing, or not ?

Only after all transformations have completed it is guaranteed (see below).
 
3) If I did not miss something the new @Immutable meta annotation is made up of the following annotations:
@ImmutableBase
@KnownImmutable
@ToString
@EqualsAndHashCode
@MapConstructor
@TupleConstructor

How is any of the last four necessary for a class to be immutable ? Immutability to me means, that the state of the class cannot be changed after it has been created. How are @ToString, @EqualsAndHashCode, @MapConstructor, and @TupleConstructor helping with this ?
At least one ctor to initialize the class fields is basically necessary to make this a practically usable immutable class, yes, but @IsImmutable it must be after @ImmutableBase does its job, or it will not be immutable in the end. All the other annotations are just icing on the cake (see "@Immutable should be named @ImmutableCanonical").

@MapConstructor and @TupleConstructor do different things if they find the @KnownImmutable marker interface on the class they are processing (defensive copy in/clone/wrap etc.) which is needed for immutable classes. We could have used an additional annotation attribute (makeImmutable = true) or something but the marker interface is useful in its own right and it seems sensible to not duplicate the information it conveys. Besides we'd have to choose a name for "makeImmutable" and again since it's only part of the immutable story good naming would be hard.
 
If you keep @ImmutableBase, at least consider replacing @KnownImmutable with @GuaranteedImmutableTag or @GuaranteedImmutableMarker ? The "Tag" or "Marker" postfix at least expresses that this annotation just tags the class as having certain properties, and that this is a general fact, and not only known to developers or compilers in the know...

Marker interfaces are commonplace within the Java world and we don't name them as such. It's not CloneableTag or SerializableMarker. I think adding such a suffix would be confusing.
 
I hope I do not completely miss your point, but this is how it looks to me from what I read :-),
Cheers,
mg



On 15.01.2018 14:08, Paul King wrote:

Response below.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:11 AM, MG <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

now I get where you are coming from with @KnownImmutable. I agree with splitting the two concepts: Flexible & elegant :-)

Transferring the parameter name knownImmutables (which exists inside the @Immutable context) to the annotation name KnownImmutable (which has no such context) still does not work for me, though.
In addition having @Immutable = @KnownImmutable + @ImmutableBase violates the definition you give for @KnownImmutable, because either the class is "known to be immutable" = "immutable by implementation by the developer", or it becomes immutable through @ImmutableBase & Groovy...

Well that is perhaps an indication that it needs to be explained better rather than necessarily a bad name. I'll try again. It just means that someone (the compiler or the developer) knows that it is immutable. If that marker interface is on the class there is no need to look further inside the class, you can assume it is vouched for as immutable. Once @ImmutableBase (or whatever name) processing has finished its checks, it can then vouch for the class and puts the marker interface "rubber stamp" on it.
 
What do you think about:
@IsImmutable
@ImmutableContract
@GuaranteedImmutable
instead
?

Thinking about this some more, still don't like @ImmutableBase. Sounds too much like a base class to me - and what would be the "base" functionality of being immutable ? Something either is immutable, or not (@ImmutableCore also fails in this regard ;-) ).
So still would prefer @ImmutableOnly o.s. ..

@ImmutableOnly indicates that it is somehow immutable at that point - it isn't really a finished immutable class until all the other related transforms have done their thing. Perhaps it is useful to reiterate what it does. It does a whole pile of validation (you can't have public fields, you can't have certain annotation attributes on some of the other annotations that wouldn't make sense for an immutable object, you can't have your own constructors, it can't be applied on interfaces, it checks spelling of property names referenced in annotation attributes) plus some preliminary changes (makes class final, ensures properties have a final private backing field and a getter but no setter, makes a copyWith constructor if needed). These changes alone don't guarantee immutability. Would you prefer @ImmutablePrelim?
 
Cheers,
mg


-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King [hidden email]
Datum: 13.01.18 13:17 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

I should have explained the @KnownImmutable idea a bit more. I guess I was thinking about several possibilities for that in parallel. What I really think is the way to go though is to split out the two different aspects that I was trying to capture. One is triggering the AST transformation, the other is a runtime marker of immutability. With that in mind I'd suggest the following:

@KnownImmutable will be a marker interface and nothing more. Any class having that annotation will be deemed immutable.
E.g. if I write my own Address class and I know it's immutable I can mark it as such:

@KnownImmutable
class Address {
  Address(String value) { this.value = value }
  final String value
}

Now if I have:

@Immutable
class Person {
  String name
  Address address
}

Then the processing associated with @Immutable won't complain about a potentially mutable "Address" field.

Then we can just leave @ImmutableBase (or similar) as the AST transform to kick off the initial processing needed for immutable classes.
The @Immutable annotation collector would be replaced by the constructor annotations, ToString, EqualsAndHashcode and both ImmutableBase and KnownImmutable.
The name KnownImmutable matches existing functionality. Two alternatives to annotating Address with KnownImmutable that already exist would be using the following annotation attributes on @Immutable:
@Immutable(knownImmutableClasses=[Address]) or @Immutable(knownImmutables=[address]).

Cheers, Paul.



On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 1:43 PM, MG <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

I think the core of the problem is, that @Immutable as a meta-annotation woud be better off being called something along the line of @ImmutableCanonical (see: If you do no need the immutability, use @Canonical), since it does not solely supply immutability support - then it would be natural to call the actual core immutability annotation just "Immutable".

That is probably off the table, since it would be a breaking change - so we are stuck with the problem of naming the immutability annotation part something else.

@ImmutableClass would imply to me that the "Class" part carries some meaning, which I feel it does not, since
a) "Class" could be postfixed to any annotation name that applies to classes
b) The meta-annotation should accordingly also be called "ImmutableClass"
Because of that I find postfixing "Immutable" with "Class" just confusing. It also is not intuitive to me, which annotation does only supply the core, and which supplies the extended (canonical) functionality...

I do not understand where you are going with @KnownImmutable (known to whom ?-) To me this seems less intuitive/more confusing than @ImmutableClass...).

@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase (because I intentionally based it on it :-) ), but different in the sense that it imho expresses the semantics of the annotation: Making the object purely immutable-only, without any constructors, toString functionality, etc.

How about:
@ImmutableOnly
@PureImmutable
@ModificationProtected

@Locked
@Frozen

@Unchangeable
@Changeless

@InitOnly
@InitializeOnly

@Constant
@Const

@NonModifieable
@NonChangeable

?
mg



On 12.01.2018 08:01, Paul King wrote:
@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase - probably okay but I don't think ideal. Another alternative would be @ImmutableInfo or have an explicit marker interface with a different package, e.g. groovy.transform.marker.Immutable but that might cause IDE completion headaches. Perhaps @KnownImmutable as a straight marker interface might be the way to go - then it could be used explicitly on manually created immutable classes and avoid the need to use the knownImmutableClasses/knownImmutables annotation attributes for that case.

Cheers, Paul.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:34 PM, mg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

great to make @Immutable more fine granular / flexible :-)

what about 
@ImmutabilityChecked
or
@ImmutableCore
instead of @ImmutableClass ?

Cheers
mg

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King <[hidden email]>
Datum: 11.01.18 08:07 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation


There has been discussion on and off about making @Immutable a meta-annotation (annotation collector) in much the same way as @Canonical was re-vamped. (This is for 2.5+).

I have a preliminary PR which does this:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/653

Preliminary because it still needs a bit of refactoring to reduce some duplication of code that exists between the normal and immutable map and tuple constructors. I still need to do this but that can happen transparently behind the scenes as an implementation detail if we don't finish it straight away. As well as reducing duplication, the pending refactoring will enable things like the pre and post options for MapConstructor and TupleConstructor which aren't currently working.

I am keen on any feedback at this point. In particular, while most of the functionality is pushed off into the collected annotations/transforms, I ended up with some left over checks which I kept in an annotation currently called @ImmutableClass. I tried various names for this class, e.g. @ImmutableBase and @ImmutableCheck but finally settled on @ImmutableClass since the annotation causes the preliminary checks to be performed but also acts as a marker interface for the MapConstructor and TupleConstructor transforms to do the alternate code needed for immutability and to indicate that a class is immutable when it might itself be a property of another immutable class. Let me know if you can think of a better name or have any other feedback.

Cheers, Paul.







Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

paulk_asert

Just one more thing.

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Paul King <[hidden email]> wrote:
1) for me, if you have to explain a name better, then it is already a bad name. Intuitively suggesting the correct interpretation to another developer, without requiring him to thoroughly read through the documentation, is the art of picking good names (which imho Groovy overall does a good job at).
With regards to @KnownImmutable, "someone (the compiler or the developer) knows" is even more confusing. If it is in fact irrelevant who knows it, why is there a "Known" in the name in the first place ? And why is therefore e.g. @IsImmutable not a better name (it could also carry a parameter which can be true or false, with false allowing a developer to express that a class is definitely not immutable (even if it might look that way on first glance; e.g. effectively blocking or issuing a warning in certain parallel execution scenarios)).

We have since the introduction of @Immutable used the knownImmutable and knownImmutableClasses annotation attributes and people seem to grok what they mean. This is a very similar use case. I think it would be hard to justify renaming @KnownImmutable without renaming the annotation attributes as well.

I guess I missed one point. There are known immutable classes in Java, e.g. String, Integer,  java.awt.Color, java.net.URI, java.util.UUID, etc. @Immutable processing knows about them but you can extend the list of classes with knownImmutableClasses=[...] and we are suggesting a further extension, you can annotate classes with @KnownImmutable.

Cheers, Paul.
MG
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

MG
In reply to this post by paulk_asert
Hmmm.... If the argument for naming the marker annotation @KnownImmutable was that the existing parameters have similar names (and cannot be changed) then it seems to me the "KnownImmutable" name choice was pretty immutable to begin with...

Apart from that, there is still the inconsistency what @KnownImmutable  really expresses:
  • Class that carries @KnownImmutable is "fully immutable": When a developer puts the annotation on a class
  • Class that carries @KnownImmutable is "bse immutable" (i.e. no defense-copying ctors etc): When being put by the Groovy compiler on a class after having applied @ImmutableBase transformations to it.

The way it looks to me you are trying to express two different things through the same annotation - but to have a clean design you would need two seperate annotations. Maybe that is also why you do not like any of my alternatives, because you are looking for one name that expresses both use cases - and that does not exist, because the use cases differ (?)

I am still convinced that while knownUmmutable semi-works as a parameter name inside of @Immutable (I would have picked guaranteed here also), that does not mean it is a good choice for the annotation name. But as I said, if you are convinced that one requires the other, this discussion is mute anyway...


On 16.01.2018 01:56, Paul King wrote:
Explanations below.

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:56 AM, MG <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

1) for me, if you have to explain a name better, then it is already a bad name. Intuitively suggesting the correct interpretation to another developer, without requiring him to thoroughly read through the documentation, is the art of picking good names (which imho Groovy overall does a good job at).
With regards to @KnownImmutable, "someone (the compiler or the developer) knows" is even more confusing. If it is in fact irrelevant who knows it, why is there a "Known" in the name in the first place ? And why is therefore e.g. @IsImmutable not a better name (it could also carry a parameter which can be true or false, with false allowing a developer to express that a class is definitely not immutable (even if it might look that way on first glance; e.g. effectively blocking or issuing a warning in certain parallel execution scenarios)).

We have since the introduction of @Immutable used the knownImmutable and knownImmutableClasses annotation attributes and people seem to grok what they mean. This is a very similar use case. I think it would be hard to justify renaming @KnownImmutable without renaming the annotation attributes as well.
 
2) There seems to be a contradiction in your statements: You say that "Once @ImmutableBase (or whatever name) processing has finished its checks, it can then vouch for the class and puts the marker interface [@KnownImmutable] "rubber stamp" on it", but further down you say that "These changes [that @ImmutableBase applies] alone don't guarantee immutability.". Is it a "known immutable" after @ImmutableBase has done its thing, or not ?

Only after all transformations have completed it is guaranteed (see below).
 
3) If I did not miss something the new @Immutable meta annotation is made up of the following annotations:
@ImmutableBase
@KnownImmutable
@ToString
@EqualsAndHashCode
@MapConstructor
@TupleConstructor

How is any of the last four necessary for a class to be immutable ? Immutability to me means, that the state of the class cannot be changed after it has been created. How are @ToString, @EqualsAndHashCode, @MapConstructor, and @TupleConstructor helping with this ?
At least one ctor to initialize the class fields is basically necessary to make this a practically usable immutable class, yes, but @IsImmutable it must be after @ImmutableBase does its job, or it will not be immutable in the end. All the other annotations are just icing on the cake (see "@Immutable should be named @ImmutableCanonical").

@MapConstructor and @TupleConstructor do different things if they find the @KnownImmutable marker interface on the class they are processing (defensive copy in/clone/wrap etc.) which is needed for immutable classes. We could have used an additional annotation attribute (makeImmutable = true) or something but the marker interface is useful in its own right and it seems sensible to not duplicate the information it conveys. Besides we'd have to choose a name for "makeImmutable" and again since it's only part of the immutable story good naming would be hard.
 
If you keep @ImmutableBase, at least consider replacing @KnownImmutable with @GuaranteedImmutableTag or @GuaranteedImmutableMarker ? The "Tag" or "Marker" postfix at least expresses that this annotation just tags the class as having certain properties, and that this is a general fact, and not only known to developers or compilers in the know...

Marker interfaces are commonplace within the Java world and we don't name them as such. It's not CloneableTag or SerializableMarker. I think adding such a suffix would be confusing.
 
I hope I do not completely miss your point, but this is how it looks to me from what I read :-),
Cheers,
mg



On 15.01.2018 14:08, Paul King wrote:

Response below.

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:11 AM, MG <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

now I get where you are coming from with @KnownImmutable. I agree with splitting the two concepts: Flexible & elegant :-)

Transferring the parameter name knownImmutables (which exists inside the @Immutable context) to the annotation name KnownImmutable (which has no such context) still does not work for me, though.
In addition having @Immutable = @KnownImmutable + @ImmutableBase violates the definition you give for @KnownImmutable, because either the class is "known to be immutable" = "immutable by implementation by the developer", or it becomes immutable through @ImmutableBase & Groovy...

Well that is perhaps an indication that it needs to be explained better rather than necessarily a bad name. I'll try again. It just means that someone (the compiler or the developer) knows that it is immutable. If that marker interface is on the class there is no need to look further inside the class, you can assume it is vouched for as immutable. Once @ImmutableBase (or whatever name) processing has finished its checks, it can then vouch for the class and puts the marker interface "rubber stamp" on it.
 
What do you think about:
@IsImmutable
@ImmutableContract
@GuaranteedImmutable
instead
?

Thinking about this some more, still don't like @ImmutableBase. Sounds too much like a base class to me - and what would be the "base" functionality of being immutable ? Something either is immutable, or not (@ImmutableCore also fails in this regard ;-) ).
So still would prefer @ImmutableOnly o.s. ..

@ImmutableOnly indicates that it is somehow immutable at that point - it isn't really a finished immutable class until all the other related transforms have done their thing. Perhaps it is useful to reiterate what it does. It does a whole pile of validation (you can't have public fields, you can't have certain annotation attributes on some of the other annotations that wouldn't make sense for an immutable object, you can't have your own constructors, it can't be applied on interfaces, it checks spelling of property names referenced in annotation attributes) plus some preliminary changes (makes class final, ensures properties have a final private backing field and a getter but no setter, makes a copyWith constructor if needed). These changes alone don't guarantee immutability. Would you prefer @ImmutablePrelim?
 
Cheers,
mg


-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King [hidden email]
Datum: 13.01.18 13:17 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Re: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation

I should have explained the @KnownImmutable idea a bit more. I guess I was thinking about several possibilities for that in parallel. What I really think is the way to go though is to split out the two different aspects that I was trying to capture. One is triggering the AST transformation, the other is a runtime marker of immutability. With that in mind I'd suggest the following:

@KnownImmutable will be a marker interface and nothing more. Any class having that annotation will be deemed immutable.
E.g. if I write my own Address class and I know it's immutable I can mark it as such:

@KnownImmutable
class Address {
  Address(String value) { this.value = value }
  final String value
}

Now if I have:

@Immutable
class Person {
  String name
  Address address
}

Then the processing associated with @Immutable won't complain about a potentially mutable "Address" field.

Then we can just leave @ImmutableBase (or similar) as the AST transform to kick off the initial processing needed for immutable classes.
The @Immutable annotation collector would be replaced by the constructor annotations, ToString, EqualsAndHashcode and both ImmutableBase and KnownImmutable.
The name KnownImmutable matches existing functionality. Two alternatives to annotating Address with KnownImmutable that already exist would be using the following annotation attributes on @Immutable:
@Immutable(knownImmutableClasses=[Address]) or @Immutable(knownImmutables=[address]).

Cheers, Paul.



On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 1:43 PM, MG <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

I think the core of the problem is, that @Immutable as a meta-annotation woud be better off being called something along the line of @ImmutableCanonical (see: If you do no need the immutability, use @Canonical), since it does not solely supply immutability support - then it would be natural to call the actual core immutability annotation just "Immutable".

That is probably off the table, since it would be a breaking change - so we are stuck with the problem of naming the immutability annotation part something else.

@ImmutableClass would imply to me that the "Class" part carries some meaning, which I feel it does not, since
a) "Class" could be postfixed to any annotation name that applies to classes
b) The meta-annotation should accordingly also be called "ImmutableClass"
Because of that I find postfixing "Immutable" with "Class" just confusing. It also is not intuitive to me, which annotation does only supply the core, and which supplies the extended (canonical) functionality...

I do not understand where you are going with @KnownImmutable (known to whom ?-) To me this seems less intuitive/more confusing than @ImmutableClass...).

@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase (because I intentionally based it on it :-) ), but different in the sense that it imho expresses the semantics of the annotation: Making the object purely immutable-only, without any constructors, toString functionality, etc.

How about:
@ImmutableOnly
@PureImmutable
@ModificationProtected

@Locked
@Frozen

@Unchangeable
@Changeless

@InitOnly
@InitializeOnly

@Constant
@Const

@NonModifieable
@NonChangeable

?
mg



On 12.01.2018 08:01, Paul King wrote:
@ImmutableCore is similar to @ImmutableBase - probably okay but I don't think ideal. Another alternative would be @ImmutableInfo or have an explicit marker interface with a different package, e.g. groovy.transform.marker.Immutable but that might cause IDE completion headaches. Perhaps @KnownImmutable as a straight marker interface might be the way to go - then it could be used explicitly on manually created immutable classes and avoid the need to use the knownImmutableClasses/knownImmutables annotation attributes for that case.

Cheers, Paul.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:34 PM, mg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Paul,

great to make @Immutable more fine granular / flexible :-)

what about 
@ImmutabilityChecked
or
@ImmutableCore
instead of @ImmutableClass ?

Cheers
mg

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Paul King <[hidden email]>
Datum: 11.01.18 08:07 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Making @Immutable a meta-annotation


There has been discussion on and off about making @Immutable a meta-annotation (annotation collector) in much the same way as @Canonical was re-vamped. (This is for 2.5+).

I have a preliminary PR which does this:
https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/653

Preliminary because it still needs a bit of refactoring to reduce some duplication of code that exists between the normal and immutable map and tuple constructors. I still need to do this but that can happen transparently behind the scenes as an implementation detail if we don't finish it straight away. As well as reducing duplication, the pending refactoring will enable things like the pre and post options for MapConstructor and TupleConstructor which aren't currently working.

I am keen on any feedback at this point. In particular, while most of the functionality is pushed off into the collected annotations/transforms, I ended up with some left over checks which I kept in an annotation currently called @ImmutableClass. I tried various names for this class, e.g. @ImmutableBase and @ImmutableCheck but finally settled on @ImmutableClass since the annotation causes the preliminary checks to be performed but also acts as a marker interface for the MapConstructor and TupleConstructor transforms to do the alternate code needed for immutability and to indicate that a class is immutable when it might itself be a property of another immutable class. Let me know if you can think of a better name or have any other feedback.

Cheers, Paul.








12