On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 20:57:57 GMT, Chris Plummer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> No I understand it, though I may not be expressing it well. But I find it >>> very hard to interpret the suggested words in a way that actually explains >>> it. This is the "connect the dots" that Chris refers to. The wording may be >>> factually correct, but actually understanding what it means requires >>> additional insight. >> >> Thanks. I see now. > > I think it is worth holding off on this PR and rethinking the overall > approach. I don't see a point in pushing something that pretty clearly will > need to be reworked. As this PR now stands, I don't think it provides enough > value add to warrant pushing it in its current state. This RFE was filed to address remaining object tagging compatibility issues. It includes all needed spec updates: [8387647](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8387647): Address remaining object tagging incompatibility issues So, I'd suggest to polish the spec related to object tagging at the same time. I think that all spec updates which explain value objects tagging should go to the object tagging section, not to this intro section. So, this PR is to make one more step to improve the intro section wording. I like Alan's suggestion. We can give it a try to reach a consensus on it. What about this? : "Value objects can be tagged, but the tag is associated with the object’s class and field values, as it has no identity. Two value object references are indistinguishable if they are the same class and their fields have indistinguishable values. Indistinguishable value objects have the same tag. The `ObjectFree` event is not sent for tagged value objects.” Can we improve this without trying to solve all the problems at once? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32211#discussion_r3740182868
