On 24/11/2011 4:21 AM, Darryl Mocek wrote:
I've gone back to the try-with-resources implementation in the test
(which will close resources), but specifically closing the
ObjectOutputStream to ensure flushing of the data. I've also kept the
three equals tests and fixed the wording in the Exceptions.
Please review: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dmocek/5035850/webrev.01
Looks okay to me except the test comments as Stuart stated.
Really this fix is to ensure that the singleton property of
CaseInsensitiveComparator is maintained through
serialization/deserialization.
David
Thanks,
Darryl
On Tue 22 Nov 2011 10:39:01 PM PST, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Darryl,
On 23/11/2011 4:32 AM, Darryl Mocek wrote:
I've resolved all issues given in the comments. Please review the
update. Webrev can be found here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dmocek/5035850/
Minor nit: in the test you took Mike's suggestion for the three
conditions to check but seem to have overlooked the slightly different
wording Mike used in the error messages and have associated the
messages with different conditions ie "match" vs "equals"
Also wondering if we need to be concerned with closing the streams in
case the test runs in samevm or agentvm ? Maybe use try-with-resources.
Thanks,
David
Thanks,
Darryl
On 11/20/2011 05:31 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 21/11/2011 5:39 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
On 11/20/2011 08:14 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 18/11/2011 18:27, Darryl Mocek wrote:
Hello. Please review this patch to fix a serialization issue with
String's CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER. If you serialize, then deserialize
the class, the equals test will fail in the comparison of what was
serialized with what was deserialized. Webrev, including test,
can be
found here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/darryl/5035850/webrev
Thanks,
Darryl
This looks okay to me but I would suggest adding a comment to
readResolve, maybe something like "Replaces the de-serialized object"
as the causal reader may not know what this method is for.
-Alan.
Hi Darryl, Hi Alan,
additional comments: in the test, you don't need to initialize
result to
null because you can remove the catch(Exception) block
Related to this I was going to say that if you get an unexpected
exception I believe you should simply let it propagate to indicate
failure.
and also you should use == instead of equals for the last check.
Given equals() is not overridden the two are equivalent. But testing
both as Mike suggests would catch any erroneous redefinition of
equals() in the future.
David
-----
cheers,
Rémi
