http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4820062
Kev
EDIT: Sorry, I was so exicited something actually changed on the bug that I had to bring attention to it again.
Holy crap! It’s alive! :o
It’s such a shame that you can’t alter the RFE title to something other than “Structs”. It would instantly elimenate all of the negative, I-read-one-word-of-the-description-and-I-don’t-like-what-I-see comments.
So, any bets on how long it’ll be till somthing actually happens?
some pretty strong aruguments on both side of the structs debate, doesn’t look like its gonna go anywhere anytime soon.
already have some utility classes to do structs in java
All of the arguments against mapped objects are from either people who don’t need to use them or from people who don’t understand why they need to exist. There are no sound arguments against them in other words. I hope someone from Sun contacts me about the RFE.
Cas 
From what I’ve read the against Structs I actually got only one type of argument and that was: “If you want to use structs, use C” I can’t think of a poorer argument!!
Nah some got a point: The code might start looking to much non OO (Even if I don’t think so) and this might get important if you want to read or modify the code others have written. If you do all the coding by yourself you simply can ignore the enhancement.
Arne
As I understand the debate, beign against that RFE mostly depends on if you’re an OO purist or not. For example, sure class Point as puclic fields that should not be exposed directly but if you use Point as a data structure ONLY then it makes sense since you will never need to use it’s operations. Sometimes I create classes that are used strictly as data structures so for me there’s no problem to delcare the fields non private in them.
Right… the whole point of structs is for cases where the data is not hidden behind some abstraction… it is the structure of the data that is the important thing in the first place… like for file format header structures, or network packet structures, or interfacing to C code structures… things where the data layout is specific and you need to get at the fields efficiently.
What actually changed?
Im not seeing anything new other than peoples’ posts.
The eval still read N/A…
"Work Around N/A
Evaluation N/A
Ah, I see got auto mail ont he topic.
it says:
Updated field(s): Category
Which is now…
Category java:classes_util
Interesting…
I got the email too I wonder what this means, is someone actually looking at it?
I agree, it is a shame the title can’t be changed, especially removing the two controversial keywords “struts” and “syntax”. I don’t know if it’s worth lobbying Sun to get the title changed but it does seem to be the source of some confusion.
Will.
Yeah, sorry about that, just got excitied when I though someone might actually be looking at it.
Kev
well its about time sun had a look at it, its number 6 on the most wanted RFE, and its been up there for a long time!
if you notice all the RFE above it have had a look & comment from sun, and a quiet few RFE below it have also got a comment, i think sun is ignoring this one on purpose.
I really agree with this.
Let’s give it a try.
Anyone know the process or ever heard of this being done?
Maybe filing another RFE that references this? and move the votes over?
It isn’t just the title, quite a bit of the discussion also uses the unmentionable word. So it really needs a new RFE based on accellerating something expressed in the current Java language.
Holy Carp! It’s actually got an ‘evaluation’ now. :o When did that appear?
oh yes there going to add it to the java.uti!
[quote]In any event,
it will not be in time for Mustang.
[/quote]
doh! guess that mean waiting another 3-4 years!
Added my vote for it. I just can’t believe how ignorant some people can be. They see the word structs and stop reading. They just assume that it will be a struct keyword like in C.
Well that was the original proposal, and there are now rather a lot of comments to read. Working out what the current consensus proposal would be from that JRE is no trivial task.
Probably not really worth reading the comments, must of it is prostrating rubbish anyway.
The original problem statement is pretty clear. While its nice to have community input I guess the important point is that someone actually considers the problem, finds a solution (community provided or not) and makes it available… preferably soon
Kev