Hi Paul, Thank you for your review. (Especially, about doc comment, it's very helpful for non-native speaker like me ;) )
2015-12-08 18:27 GMT+09:00 Paul Sandoz <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > Looks good. > > Just minor comments. > > Would you mind limiting the text (not the example code) in the JavaDoc to > the 80 limit? Oops, I've not minded, I'll be careful. I update my webrev to take your suggestions: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/8144675/webrev.02/ Regards, shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida) > Collectors > — > > 455 * Adapts a {@code Collector} accepting elements of type {@code > T} which is filtered by filtering predicate to > 456 * each input element before accumulation. > > Suggest the following: > > Adapts a {@code Collector} to one accepting elements of the same type > {@code T} > by applying the predicate to each input element and only accumulating if > the predicate returns {@code true} > > > 462 * {@code Employee}, to accumulate the number of employee which > is filtered the salaly in each department: > > Suggest the following: > > , to accumulate the number of employees in each department > that have a salary above a certain threshold: > > Actually based on your latest email it might be clearer to replace > counting() with toList()/toSet() to avoid the ambiguity with toMap and > summation: > > For example, given a stream of {@code Employee}, to accumulate the > employees in > each department that have a salary above a certain threshold: > > Map<Department, Set<Employee>> wellPaidEmployeesByDeparetment > = employees.stream().collect(groupingBy(Employee::getDepartment, > filtering(e -> > e.getSalary() > 2000, toset()))); > > > (Since we don’t specify the monetary units, it is left as an exercise to > speculate whether this is well paid or not :-) ). > > > 472 * @param filter a predicate to be applied to the input elements > > s/filter/predicate (and likewise for the method argument). > > > Thanks, > Paul. > > > On 7 Dec 2015, at 09:59, ShinyaYoshida <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Paul, > > Thank you for your answer. > > > > I've just updated my webrev to use 9: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/8144675/webrev.01/ > > > > Regards, > > shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida) > > > > > > 2015-12-07 17:31 GMT+09:00 Paul Sandoz <[email protected]>: > > > >> On 7 Dec 2015, at 03:45, ShinyaYoshida <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> I'd like to wait for the review, but I have a trivial question: > >> > >> Which @since is preferred, 1.9 or 9? > >> > > > > @since 9 > > > > > >> For ex, at Optional#or and stream, @since 9 is used. > >> On the other hand, at Collectors#flatMap, @since 1.9 is used. > >> > > > > Feel free to update that to 9. > > > > I started using @9 a little while ago in anticipation of the new > version-string scheme (http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/223). I expect there > will be a global sweep through the code updating @since tags. > > > > Paul. > > > > > > > >
