Hi Daniel and David, Thanks for your opinions and for sharing more context - it is definitely clearer now! I am glad that I reached out to the mailing list first instead of going ahead with the changes! :)
Regards, Sergei Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, August 27th, 2021 at 15:14, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 27/08/2021 8:42 pm, Daniel Fuchs wrote: > > > Hi Sergei, > > > > I wouldn't bother replacing StringBuffers with StringDuilders in tests. > > > > It seems a bit gratuitous - and possibly could complicate future > > > > tests backports. > > > > But that's my personal opinion. Others might disagree. > > I agree with you. Complete waste of time and effort for zero benefit > > IMO. Sorry Sergei. > > Cheers, > > David > > > best regards, > > > > -- daniel > > > > On 27/08/2021 11:00, Sergei Ustimenko wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Some tests use StringBuffers instead of StringBuilders where > > > > > > additional thread-safety > > > > > > is not required as e.g. in > > > > > > test/jdk/sun/util/resources/TimeZone/Bug4640234.java:82 : > > > > > > ... > > > > > > StringBuffer errors > > > > > > = > > > > > > new > > > > > > StringBuffer( > > > > > > "" > > > > > > ); > > > > > > StringBuffer warnings > > > > > > = > > > > > > new > > > > > > StringBuffer( > > > > > > "" > > > > > > ); > > > > > > ... > > > > > > There were some efforts to clean up core libs (e.g. java.base module in > > > > > > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/2922) and I've noticed some tests > > > > > > that could be > > > > > > improved as well. > > > > > > Now there are about 300 tests for different modules that in general > > > > > > use StringBuffers > > > > > > (most probably some of them not without a reason) so is it something > > > > > > worth looking > > > > > > into? What you think about it? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Sergei
