On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 06:48:57 GMT, David Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> So the intent here is to change what the current JEP-401 specification is >>> and to ship this variant instead for the first preview? >> >> There are a number of JVMTI issues with value class and strict fields. Most >> of these issues were identified during the review of the changes for the >> initial JEP 401 integration - the agreement was to work on them the JEP >> integration. So hopefully most will be addressed before the fork in Dec. > >> the agreement was to work on them the JEP integration > > Understood. I just have no idea what process to follow here with regards to > CSR requests or updating the JEP and it's CSR request to reflect the final > JVM TI changes. > > @dholmes-ora wrote: > > > But I would not expect there is a need for a Release Note as this is all > > > new behaviour in relation to value objects. > > > > > > Okay. I'll remove the `release-note=yes` label. > > There are a lot of updates to JVMTI for strict fields and value classes, and > more to come. It might be that it's easier for debugger vendors to digest all > of these changes in one release note rather than a dozen small ones. That is not the role of a release note. This will be a new preview feature and the debugger vendors should be looking at the specification updates and/or the JEP to get the necessary details. There should ultimately be one JEP-related document that gives all the specification updates. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/33526#issuecomment-6436625545
