On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:34:27 GMT, Claes Redestad <redes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The modified code is called only when a user explicitly calls `padNext(int,
>> char)`, i.e. if I modified the example snippet as
>>
>> DateTimeFormatter dtf = new DateTimeFormatterBuilder()
>> .appendLiteral("Date:")
>> //.padNext(20, ' ')
>> .append(DateTimeFormatter.ISO_DATE)
>> .toFormatter();
>> String text = dtf.format(LocalDateTime.now());
>>
>> there's no regression.
>>
>> Right now I cannot build ad-hoc JDK with my changes and check it with JMH,
>> so I'd convert this to draft until I can verify it
>
> Meant that you should verify that something like this, which just add a
> little padding, doesn't regress with your changes:
>
> DateTimeFormatter dtf = new DateTimeFormatterBuilder()
> .appendLiteral("Year:")
> .padNext(5)
> .appendValue(ChronoField.YEAR)
> .toFormatter();
> ...
> dtf.format(LocalDateTime.now());
>
> And similar for effectively no padding (`.padNext(4)` in the above example).
> As this API might often be used to ensure short 2-4 char fields are correctly
> padded I think it's important that we're not adding overhead to such use
> cases.
Added benchmark for this
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12131#discussion_r1147980908
