On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:05:07 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> Ugh, hopefully this will be replaced in the next iteration. >> >> What should we replace it with? Do you have any suggestions? > >> What should we replace it with? Do you have any suggestions? > > The wrapper classes were needed when there were was a mix of synchronized and > j.u.concurrent locks in use. With JEP 491 integrated it meant that the > java.io classes could be changed back to use synchronized. Yes, we could do > some cleanup in Throwable too. Changing PrintStreamOrWriter to be an > interface should be fine but the rest of these changes in this PR doesn't > seem necessary. As others have already asked, I think it would be useful to > understand what issue you are running into and why you want to change this > code. > @AlanBateman I have modified it to use interface + record. Is this what you > want? I don't object to changing it to interface + record but it feels more like needless code churn. I really disliked the next version that used printStackTrace0(Object printer) as it immediately invites another re-write. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24795#discussion_r2059679772
