On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 17:08:04 GMT, Chen Liang <[email protected]> wrote:
>> `ValueBased` talks about constructor avoidance but does not specify the >> reason. It's better to include the reason because it's not straightforward >> from the fact that there's no binary incompatibility. >> >> Also `InvalidClassException` benefits from descriptions about >> strictly-initialized fields. >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > Chen Liang has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge > or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in > by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional commits since > the last revision: > > - Restructuring and rewording > - Merge branch 'lworld' of https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla into > doc/lw-vb-ctor-ice > - Minor ValueBased and InvalidClassException comments src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/doc-files/ValueBased.html line 37: > 35: In a future release, they may become value classes (JLS > 36: {@jls value-objects-8.1.1.5}). > 37: The compiler and runtime enforce some properties for value-based classes If it's appropriate to link to JEPs from javadoc: The compiler and runtime provide <a href="https://openjdk.org/jeps/390";>warnings</a> related to the misuse of value-based classes. (Not really "enforcement", and I don't think we need to say anything more about migration.) ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2631#discussion_r3598304340
