On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:43:45 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My point was that we may not have to reword their description if we explain >> why they are deprecated in the `@deprecated` note? > > I don't see anything in the refactored wording to say that it accepts IP > literals so I don't have a strong opinion as to whether this is included in > this PR or not. I think it is important to expand the deprecated message to > clearly explain why it is deprecated. @AlanBateman, I've improved the deprecation message in 34efcd3abc1. I've kept the _"[...], which performs stricter checks on the provided hostname."_ addendum, to leave the API open for further checks, instead of enumerating each (e.g., IP literal checks) and locking the API to only that subset, which was the main blocking issue with the existing ctors' API specification when we've attemped to re-purpose them. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30747#discussion_r3166667402
