Answering my own question. The above error raises from Spring Boot not being able to construct the bean because of the lack of a no-argument constructor. Records implicitly declare a constructor with a parameter for every member. Spring Boot allows us to use the @ConstructorBinding annotation to enable property binding by constructor instead of setter … Read more
IntelliJ Bug / Missing Feature Using the in-built JDK tool for javadoc with the version 14-ea and above, I could easily generate Javadoc for a record. The command used for the same is \ /jdk-14.jdk/…/javadoc –release=14 –enable-preview …/src/main/java/…/CityRecord.java So this would certainly be something missing in IntelliJ. (Since the ‘Add Javadoc’ option also doesn’t include … Read more
The JEP states this: Restrictions on records Records cannot extend any other class, and cannot declare instance fields other than the private final fields which correspond to components of the state description. Any other fields which are declared must be static. These restrictions ensure that the state description alone defines the representation. The Java 17 … Read more
No you do not need to define your own hashCode and equals. You may do so if you wish to override the default implementation. See section 8.10.3 of the specification for details https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se14/preview/specs/records-jls.html#jls-8.10 Note, specifically, the caveat on implementing your own version of these: All the members inherited from java.lang.Record. Unless explicitly overridden in the … Read more
To split hairs, you cannot ever define a default constructor, because a default constructor is generated by the compiler when there are no constructors defined, thus any defined constructor is by definition not a default one. If you want a record to have a no-arg constructor, records do allow adding extra constructors or factory methods, … Read more
Quote from JEP 359: It is not a goal to declare “war on boilerplate”; in particular, it is not a goal to address the problems of mutable classes using the JavaBean naming conventions. My understanding, based on the same document is that records are transparent holders for shallowly immutable data. That being said: Records are … Read more
Records and primitive classes (the new name for value types) have a lot in common — they are implicitly final and shallowly immutable. So it is understandable that the two might be seen as the same thing. In reality, they are different, and there is room for both of them to co-exist, but they can … Read more
Lombok, and the record feature of the Java language, are different tools for different things. There is some superficial overlap, but don’t let that distract you. Lombok is largely about syntactic convenience; it is a macro-processor pre-loaded with some known useful patterns of code. It doesn’t confer any semantics; it just automates the patterns, according … Read more