> On 4 Jan 2018, at 23:42, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 11, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 8, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All previous suggested changes have been made in
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/4358774/webrev.03/
>>>
>>> except for the possible change of name for the IS and OS nullStream()
>>> methods which awaits consensus.
>>
>> As long as we’re still at it, given java.util.stream.Stream then
>>
>> InputStream.nullInput()
>> OutputStream.nullOutput()
>> Reader.nullReader()
>> Writer.nullWriter()
>>
>> might not be a bad alternative.
>
> Re-reading the discussion [1] of last year regarding [2], it seems that there
> was convergence on all points raised except the names of the new methods. The
> alternatives are:
>
> A) InputStream.nullStream() and OutputStream.nullStream() as in the most
> recent version, webrev.03,
> B) InputStream.nullInput() and OutputStream.nullOutput() as shown above, and
> C) InputStream.nullInputStream() and OutputStream.nullOutputStream().
>
> Does anyone have any more comments on this point? I would be inclined to
> choose option C.
After re-reading the email thread, I would choose option C too. It is
unambiguous, and the ‘null{classname}’ pattern can be used for Reader/Writer in
the future.
-Chris
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
> [1]
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2017-December/050367.html
> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4358774
