<div dir="auto">> <span style="font-family:-apple-system,helveticaneue">Who did you think you'd been talking to?</span></div><div dir="auto"><font face="-apple-system, helveticaneue"><br></font></div><div dir="auto"><font face="-apple-system, helveticaneue">I'm sorry, but you don't have to be unpleasant. </font></div><div dir="auto"><font face="-apple-system, helveticaneue"><br></font></div><div dir="auto"><font face="-apple-system, helveticaneue">I thought that this mailing list should be used for exactly the reason related to giving feedback on preview features such as scoped values. I understand that this thread is extremely long but the problem is complex in my opinion. If you're unwilling to continue this discussion of get feedback about the features you're working on then just say so.</font></div><div dir="auto"><font face="-apple-system, helveticaneue"><br></font></div><div dir="auto"><font face="-apple-system, helveticaneue">Afair some people in this thread stated that they are not working on the JDK. Some, like you, if I'm not mistaken, have not addressed most of my arguments. I've only heard that for security reasons (scopes could be opened and closed out of order) and immutability (I don't understand how the api changes would modify that. It simply allows me to have more control. What currently is called in the lambda would be manually called by me. There are no changes here unless I'm mistaken) you are reluctant to consider my feedback. </font></div><div dir="auto"><font face="-apple-system, helveticaneue"><br></font></div><div dir="auto"><font face="-apple-system, helveticaneue">You have all right to do that, I don't have a problem with that, but I'd just prefer to have a final, definite answer so that I can plan changes in tracing libraries accordingly.</font></div><div dir="auto"><br clear="all"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Pozdrawiam / Best regards,</div><div>Marcin Grzejszczak</div><div><br><div><a href="https://marcin.grzejszczak.pl" target="_blank">https://marcin.grzejszczak.pl</a></div><div><a href="https://toomuchcoding.com" target="_blank">https://toomuchcoding.com</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 09:57, Andrew Haley <<a href="mailto:aph-open@littlepinkcloud.com">aph-open@littlepinkcloud.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 6/20/24 13:42, Marcin Grzejszczak wrote:<br>
> <br>
> I still would like to get the answer from the JDK maintainers if my arguments (which I think I presented a lot) would allow it to consider opening the API to the idea of giving the library maintainers more control.<br>
<br>
Who did you think you'd been talking to?<br>
<br>
On 6/20/24 14:57, Robert Engels wrote:<br>
><br>
> If there is any performance gain, it is due to the property of them being immutable and shared - something your api changes are trying to discard<br>
<br>
Yes. This.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Andrew Haley (he/him)<br>
Java Platform Lead Engineer<br>
Red Hat UK Ltd. <<a href="https://www.redhat.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com</a>><br>
<a href="https://keybase.io/andrewhaley" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://keybase.io/andrewhaley</a><br>
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>