RFR: 4617681: constructor of BufferedImage throws unexpected IllegalArgumentException

[Phil Race]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 23:16:36 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <serb at openjdk.org> wrote:

>>> > The work and compatibility concerns to address these are out of all proportion to simply documenting what has been true since the very beginning - 27 years plus - without a compelling reason.
>>> 
>>> What compatibility impact? 
>> 
>> That is in reponse to your suggestion to change the internal raster type. Not to a spec working change.
>> 
>> It has been throwing exceptions all this time, but currently it is allowed to work if we change that in the future, unlike the current proposal, which describes all implementation details as part of the specification, making it much harder to change later.
>> 
>> (1) No it allows leeway
>> (2) Even if it didn't we can relax it if there's ever a compelling enough reason - which I doubt we'll find.
>> 
>>> Instead we can mention "maximum supported length" in the spec and in the "impl section" mention that currently it is the size of the array/maxint,
>> 
>> I don't see how that is better.
>
>>I don't see how that is better.
> 
> The specification will include a note about certain limitations, and under @implNote, we will describe the actual implementation-specific limitation. I believe that tag is appropriate in this context:
> 
>>"@implNote" — Implementation Notes. This section contains informative notes about the implementation, such as advice for implementors or performance characteristics specific to this class in this version of the JDK. The information in this **section may change from release to release**. These characteristics may also vary across platforms, vendors, and JDK versions.

It is a statement of fact. Not an implNote.
If someone used different storage the clause would still be accurate even if there were no actual examples of it left.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27640#discussion_r2412196131