On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 17:26:33 GMT, Chris Plummer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Your summary is correct. I was just trying to provide more context and >> understanding. I can take a stab at a more succinct version that makes no >> spec references. > > ...but keep in mind that I'm also trying to satisfy Joe's requests: > >>Additional comment: for JDI, I recommend including a short discussion of >>objects of value classes somewhere in the API; this would supplement the >>links to Class.isValue already in the patch. > > And > >> my request is posed from the perspective of a reader of the JDI docs who is >> trying to find out how JDI works with respect to value classes. Value >> classes differ on == semantics, no locking, etc. So besides the point >> changes in various methods reflecting those updates, I think a brief >> paragraph (which could potentially be linked to from elsewhere in the JDI >> javadoc) explaining those points would be useful. > > I don't want this to end up being reduced to just restating what is in > StackFrame::thisObject(), which seems to be where your suggestions are headed. I am somewhat at odds with Joe's requests. I understand where they are coming from but they are based on the "what's new" view of spec reading. When value objects are new it is understandable to ask "where are all the places where value objects need special handling". But to me that is where the JEP and/or release notes come into play. The spec's do not have these "what's new" sections. If they have overview sections then we can certainly add some mention of value objects (as done for JNI and JVMTI) but in minimal ways. Obviously it is necessary to explain what an ObjectReference means for a value object, but that is all that is needed within the ObjectReference spec. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2639#discussion_r3574375706
