On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 20:41:30 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Maybe you can also add something like "Tagging a value object effectively >> tags all indistinguishable value objects", although I think the wording >> could be better. >> >> I think one thing we lost sight of is the text that comes in the just before >> the text being added: >> >> "...but some specific functions will behave differently if invoked upon a >> Java object that does not have identity. Such differences in behavior are >> described by the individual functions and events where they apply." >> >> Yet we are describing the difference here rather than in the tagging >> section. The ObjectFree section does mention it not being call for value >> objects. If we want a summary here, it should be a summary of where there >> are differences, but instead of fully describing each difference, just >> include a link to the text the more fully describes the difference. >> >> Also, I just noticed GetObjectsWithTags, which might need some clarification >> w.r.t. value objects to make it clear it only returns one of each >> indistinguishable value object. > > The intention of this tweak was to be minor and satisfy Alan's request. It > looks like this becomes not minor anymore as we are discussing a bigger > scope. :) > What I would like to avoid is going to different directions force and back. > This intro section is itself a compromise. The intention was to provide > summary of differences. Now we want to make those differences understandable > right away which is not always possible without going into details. > The JVMTI spec is full of spots which are not perfect and under-specified > sometimes. But we do not want it to be over-specified either. There has to be > some balance here. > Now I'm lost in what direction to go. > No I understand it, though I may not be expressing it well. But I find it > very hard to interpret the suggested words in a way that actually explains > it. This is the "connect the dots" that Chris refers to. The wording may be > factually correct, but actually understanding what it means requires > additional insight. Thanks. I see now. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32211#discussion_r3738645665
