RFR(m): JEP 269 initial API and skeleton implementation (JDK-8139232)

Chris Hegarty chris.hegarty at oracle.com
Wed Nov 25 16:14:34 UTC 2015

On 24 Nov 2015, at 23:27, Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com> wrote:
> ….
> But in the hypothetical value-typed future, we might want to return value types from at least some of the factory methods. Value types have no notion of identity, so we don't want to make any statements that lead to thinking about the identity of the returned object, even to the extent of saying that it "might" be the "same" instance as one previously returned.
> Based on this, it occurs to me that I should add the "value-based" disclaimer to the relevant section of class doc. (I also note that, off-line, John Rose had already prompted me to do this, so I should heed his advice.)

Is there any impact on the Serializability of these collections, if
they are “value” based?  I don’t think so, but I’m not sure, since
their serial form is not documented.  Note to self: should we
document their serial form?

> I'll also change the method docs to say something like,
> * Returns an immutable list containing <N> elements.
> * ...
> * @return a list containing the specified elements

Looks fine.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list