On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:29:29 GMT, Chen Liang <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/constant/ClassDesc.java line 278:
>>
>>> 276:
>>> 277: /**
>>> 278: * {@return a human-readable name for this {@code ClassDesc}}
>>
>> I don't see the merit of making the string representation unspecified. The
>> implSpec already specifies the string representation for the display name.
>> Why not just promoting it to normal spec text?
>
> I believe the specification for class or interface display name is too tight:
> if we have `java.awt.List` versus `java.util.List`, our current
> implementation prints `List` for both cases. It makes sense for an
> implementation to print something like `j.a.List` versus `j.u.List`.
Returning the fully-qualified class name could also be an option. Since the
implementation is not changed, I would suggest promoting the implSpec text to
normal spec text. For a proposal to change the specification as well as the
implementation to return something different with incompatibility, it'd good to
do it as a separate RFE and discuss what was considered when the implSpec was
decided to print the unqualified class name.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20665#discussion_r1811573420
