+1 Paul.
> On Jan 6, 2020, at 3:22 PM, Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > The initial implementation of java.lang.Record uses a default constructor; an > explicit constructor should be added instead. Please review the code change > and CSR for this: > > JDK-8236695: java.lang.Record should be declared with an explicit > constructor > CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8236699 > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8236695.0/ > > Patch below. It is sufficient for the constructor to be declared as protected > rather than public; the serialization tests and other records test pass with > this change. > > Thanks, > > -Joe > > --- old/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Record.java 2020-01-06 > 13:47:31.740871560 -0800 > +++ new/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Record.java 2020-01-06 > 13:47:31.552777567 -0800 > @@ -91,6 +91,11 @@ > essentialAPI=true) > public abstract class Record { > /** > + * Constructor for record classes to call. > + */ > + protected Record() {} > + > + /** > * Indicates whether some other object is "equal to" this one. In > addition > * to the general contract of {@link Object#equals(Object)}, > * record classes must further participate in the invariant that when >
