On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:37:23 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On the contrary, I would argue for making requireIdentity a reflective >> preview API - this requirement makes sense for programs running out of >> preview too, that they want something with a monitor instead of null or new >> kinds of monitorless objects. > > I wonder if Roger has any notes on "why" the requireIdentity methods are > normal preview, and this one is a reflective preview API. If there are > frameworks or library looking to have early support for value classes they > might need want to use requireIdentity. When virtual threads were in preview > then we noticed the frameworks were accessing the preview API reflectively > (as they want to build/run across a range of releases) and thus it didn't > matter if the API was normal or reflective preview. Is there a resolution here, or do we need a follow-up, post integ bug filed ? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31123#discussion_r3544757005
