On Wed, 14 May 2025 19:37:57 GMT, Markus KARG <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The result should be immutable and CharSequence does not provide that. >> The contents should not be modifiable after the method returns. > > A "pure" `CharSequence` *is* immutable, as it does not have mutation methods. > Also, why *should* the result be immutable? If someone wants to return a > `StringBuilder` for example (for whatever intent), why shouldn't he allowed > to do that? In fact, it would be beneficial to return a `StringBuilder` in > some cases, as it is more efficient to modify (*iff* wanted) than a `String`. > It should be up to the caller and the provider of the implementation to > decide about immutability; this is not the API's discretion. > Maybe a good idea at this point if @mkarg could provide an example of server > code benefitting from returning a CharSequence... The most simple example is a file server. Incidential fact, just today I wrote a function that simply passes JSON documents received in a REST call forward to another server using another REST call (without parsing it). The document is not changed. It is *inefficient* to force it into a `String` temporarily. This is not untypical, such use cases exists often in server computing. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24728#discussion_r2089622286
