Trust final fields in records

[Andrew Haley]

On 15/06/2020 20:33, John Rose wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2020, at 2:37 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/06/2020 17:56, Brian Goetz wrote:
>>
>>> If we make this change when records exit preview, this will catch
>>> maintainers of these frameworks unaware — things will just start
>>> breaking when their clients use records.  But if we give them a
>>> grace period (e.g., lock it down in 17), we need to ensure that
>>> they’ll use that time effectively,
>>
>> Has this ever happened? What seems to have happened instead is that
>> people complain bitterly about "access will be disabled in the next
>> release" warning messages, do nothing, then complain even louder when
>> access really gets disabled. Maybe I'm gitting jaundiced...
> 
> Under the assumption that *some* people will move on this
> only when forced to move, a grace period buys nothing for
> *those* people.  It’s not like we are changing an existing
> behavior; since records are new, the grace period does not
> apply to people who have built records in good faith and
> need time to adjust.  In fact, if we give a grace period *now*
> for the slow-footed “make me change” people, we might
> well have to give *another* grace period to the more reasonable
> people that adopted records in the preview.
> 
> I say, tighten the clamps now, when it hurts only a few
> people.  No grace period today.

That makes sense: it's a new feature. I am very aware this is not a vote,
but:

  +1

-- 
Andrew Haley  (he/him)
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
https://keybase.io/andrewhaley
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671