On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 16:47:01 GMT, Chen Liang <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Core reflection has its own type conversion behavior that is somewhat poorly >> specified; it is scattered around a few places, and its boxing and unboxing >> deviates from that of Java language assignment contexts. In addition, core >> reflection has a somewhat erroneous access check system. We can improve the >> overview of java.lang.reflect to address these shortcomings and recommend >> users to use java.lang.invoke for better functionality in these areas. >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > Chen Liang has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge > or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in > by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 20 additional commits since > the last revision: > > - Tweaks > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > doc/reflect-accessor-conversion > - Years > - Formatting and add an example > - Drop 2 > - typos and consistency > - Merge branch 'doc/reflect-accessor-conversion' into m1 > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > doc/reflect-accessor-conversion > - formatting > - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into > doc/reflect-accessor-conversion > - ... and 10 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/c722f83f...86002208 src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Field.java line 421: > 419: > 420: /** > 421: * Returns the value of the static or instance field represented by > this Does this really add any clarity? Are there any other fields than static or instance that wouldn't be covered by the original wording? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28685#discussion_r3403371935
