Thanks for replying, Joe. First, let me reiterate, we fully admit there was a bug in painless, we stopped short in walking the class hierarchy. There is no bug in the SequencedCollection hierarchy. But I do think there is an inconsistency.
> The two definition are semantically equivalent > ... > The JDK 22 javadoc for List shows: >> All Superinterfaces: >> Collection<E>, Iterable<E>, SequencedCollection<E> While that is true, in practice the reflection API does not give the same collapsed view that javadocs do. Calling getInterfaces() on a class only returns direct super interfaces, so List.class.getInterfaces() no longer returns Collection.class in JDK 21. The inconsistency I see is that SortedSet.class.getInterfaces() *does* still return Set.class. Was that intentional? It seems like either SortedSet does not need to extend Set directly, or List should still extend Collection directly. And doing the latter would provide an extra layer of "compatibility" for applications that may look at direct super interfaces, and be surprised that Collection disappeared across JDK versions for List. On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 6:31 PM Joseph D. Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > What is Painless doing that would fail under > > List extends SequencedCollection ... > > but work under > > List extends SequencedCollection, Collection ... > > The two definition are semantically equivalent since SequencedCollection > itself extends Collection. > > The JDK 22 javadoc for List shows: > > > All Superinterfaces: > > Collection<E>, Iterable<E>, SequencedCollection<E> > > There are certainly implementation artifacts concerning the details of > how a type was declared that exposed via core reflection (for the > javax.lang.model API during annotation processing at compile time), but > it is a bug for third party programs to rely on such details. > > HTH, > > -Joe > > On 6/27/2023 7:37 AM, Ryan Ernst wrote: > > Hi core-libs-dev, > > > > I know various threads have existed over the past few months on > > SequencedCollection and its implications on compatibility. I wanted to > > raise this semi-related issue we noticed recently after beginning > > testing against Java 21. > > > > Elasticsearch began testing against Java 21, and noticed a series of > > failures in Painless (our builtin scripting language, which > > dynamically compiles to bytecode). Most tests that used List failed to > > compile, with several unknown methods (eg add). Painless builds a > > hierarchy of classes it knows about for method resolution. This > > hierarchy didn't know anything about SequencedCollection since we > > currently compile against Java 17. Now, this was ultimately a bug in > > Painless, because we knew there could be cases where we encounter > > unknown classes in the hierarchy (eg a class which is not blessed to > > be visible in the language). However, I think the reason we found that > > bug (List extending from SequencedCollection) might still cause issues > > for some. > > > > While debugging the issue, something that struck me as interesting in > > the SequencedCollection hierarchy is the difference between List and > > SortedSet. Both of these classes were made to be compatible with > > sequenced classes by adding the new classes as super interfaces, > > SequencedCollection and SequencedSet, respectively. However, while > > SortedSet was *added* as a super interface, List had its super > > interface Collection *replaced* by SequencedCollection. > > > > I don't know enough about the rampdown process to know if this is > > still fixable in Java 21. It is probably an extreme edge case that > > doesn't matter, since eg instanceof Collection will still work in > > existing code. But for consistency, it would seem better to maintain > > Collection as a direct super interface of List. Is there any reason > > such a change doesn't fit with the collections architecture going > > forward?
