<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Babneet Singh on JAVAPRO International</title><link>https://javapro-en.svenruppert.com/authors/babneet-singh/</link><description>Recent content in Babneet Singh on JAVAPRO International</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:00:02 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://javapro-en.svenruppert.com/authors/babneet-singh/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Lazy Constants in Java 26: Deferred Immutability and JVM Trust</title><link>https://javapro-en.svenruppert.com/lazy-constants-in-java-26-deferred-immutability-and-jvm-trust/</link><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:00:02 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://javapro-en.svenruppert.com/lazy-constants-in-java-26-deferred-immutability-and-jvm-trust/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Java developers have long lived with an awkward trade-off. If you want the clarity and optimization benefits of &lt;code&gt;final&lt;/code&gt;, you must initialize eagerly, in a constructor or static initializer. If you want to defer expensive setup until first use, you usually fall back to mutable lazy-initialization patterns, nullable fields, or double-checked locking. Those techniques work, but they also make code harder to reason about and harder for the JVM to optimize.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Structured Concurrency in Java 26 (JEP 525 Deep Dive)</title><link>https://javapro-en.svenruppert.com/structured-concurrency-in-java-26-jep-525-deep-dive/</link><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 07:00:01 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://javapro-en.svenruppert.com/structured-concurrency-in-java-26-jep-525-deep-dive/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="the-java-26-evolution-of-safer-predictable-multi-threading"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Java 26 Evolution of Safer, Predictable Multi-threading&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Java has long provided powerful concurrency primitives. Threads, executors, futures, and more recently virtual threads allow applications to scale across cores and I/O boundaries. Yet many production failures are not caused by insufficient parallelism, but by insufficient structure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Tasks outlive the operations that spawned them. Failures are detected but not propagated consistently. Interrupts are delivered but not observed in time. Thread dumps reveal activity, but not ownership or intent.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>OpenJ9 GC Policies: How to Choose the Right Collector</title><link>https://javapro-en.svenruppert.com/openj9-gc-policies-how-to-choose-the-right-collector/</link><pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 07:00:02 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://javapro-en.svenruppert.com/openj9-gc-policies-how-to-choose-the-right-collector/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;For many OpenJ9 users, garbage collection tuning starts with the wrong question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They ask, &amp;ldquo;Which collector is the fastest?&amp;rdquo; or &amp;ldquo;Which one is best for cloud?&amp;rdquo; In practice, the better question is: &lt;strong&gt;what does my application actually need from the heap?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That is the right starting point because OpenJ9 gives you several distinct GC policies, each designed around a different balance of throughput, pause time, heap geometry, and operational behavior. The default is &lt;strong&gt;&lt;code&gt;gencon&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, and for a broad spectrum of Java applications that is still the right place to start. But once heaps grow, pause spikes become operationally expensive, or throughput becomes the dominant goal, a different policy may be the better fit.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Final Is No Longer a Hint in Java 26</title><link>https://javapro-en.svenruppert.com/final-is-no-longer-a-hint-in-java-26/</link><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 07:00:02 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://javapro-en.svenruppert.com/final-is-no-longer-a-hint-in-java-26/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Java 26 (JEP 500) warns when code mutates final fields via deep reflection and introduces explicit controls to scope or deny that behavior. This article breaks down what changes, why it matters for JIT optimizations, and a migration loop you can put into CI.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id="jep-500-and-the-performance-runway-behind-final-means-final"&gt;JEP 500 and the Performance Runway Behind &lt;em&gt;Final Means Final&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For years, Java has carried a quiet contradiction: the language treats final fields as immutable after initialization, but deep reflection could still mutate them. That single escape hatch forces the JVM to be conservative about both correctness and optimization, because a final value might not actually be final.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>