> On Jun 10, 2020, at 1:15 PM, Martin Buchholz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I took a look at PriorityBlockingQueue.
>
> Part of converting to ArraysSupport involves deleting the local orphan
> MAX_ARRAY_SIZE; that needs to be done.
Removed.
>
> ---
> It looks like
> newCap > oldCap
> is always true, so we should delete the test?
> if (newCap > oldCap && queue == array)
> ---
If oldCap == MAX_ARRAY_SIZE wouldn't newCap == oldCap
> In Pattern.java I see
> + throw new OutOfMemoryError("Requested array size exceeds
> VM limit");
>
> That wording doesn't seem useful to me - the use of an array is an
> implementation detail, and the user didn't __request__ it.
>
> Better seems the wording in ArraysSupport
> throw new OutOfMemoryError("Required array length too large");
> but if we're going to the trouble of composing a custom detail
> message, I'd try harder to find one meaningful to the user of the API,
> something like "pattern too large"
Done and done.
Thank you.
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:15 AM Jim Laskey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Will push if no comments by EOB.
>>
>>> On Jun 8, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Jim Laskey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Revised to use a consistent error message. Modified AbstractStringBuilder
>>> and PriorityBlockingQueue to use ArraysSupport.newLength(). Didn't modify
>>> ByteArrayChannel and UnsyncByteArrayOutputStream since those changes would
>>> require changes to module exporting.
>>>
>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8230744/webrev-03/index.html
>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8230744/webrev-03/index.html>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 11:24 AM, Jim Laskey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not the goal or role of this bug to fix the wrongs of the past,
>>>> merely add error messages to the exceptions. I raised the discussion as an
>>>> issue. Clearly there is a correct path to follow. If you think more effort
>>>> is required then file a bug. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> -- Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 2, 2020, at 7:13 PM, Stuart Marks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/20 6:52 AM, Jim Laskey wrote:
>>>>>> Revised to reflect requested changes.
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8230744/webrev-01/index.html
>>>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8230744/webrev-01/index.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> On this, if all you're doing is changing exception messages, then I don't
>>>>> care very much, modulo concerns about wording from others. If you start
>>>>> to get into changing the growth logic (like the Math.addExact stuff) then
>>>>> please see my message on the related thread, "Sometimes constraints are
>>>>> questionable."
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> s'marks
>>>>
>>>
>>
