On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Attila Kelemen <attila.keleme...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> If it really breaks the spec, I would change it (and maybe do that anyway
> given the number of bugs related to generics in javac and many other
> tools). However, I don't understand why it shouldn't work. In the code:
>
> private static <E extends Throwable> List<TestFactory<E>> test(
> Collection<? extends Supplier<? extends E>> factory) {
> return factory.stream()
> .map(NewClass::testMap)
> .collect(Collectors.toList());
> }
>
> private static <E extends Throwable> TestFactory<E> testMap(Supplier<?
> extends E> factory) {
> return null;
> }
>
> private static interface TestFactory<E extends Throwable> {
> }
>
>
> `factory.stream().map(NewClass::testMap)` should return a
> `Stream<TestFactory<E>>` as the method testMap maps values to
> `TestFactory<E>` and therefore collect return the list as declared. What is
> the problem with the code?
>
> Also, can you comment on the other javac/generics related issue:
> https://netbeans.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=270849
I've filled:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181911
Jan
>
> 2017-06-10 22:04 GMT+02:00 Jan Lahoda <lah...@gmail.com>:
>
> > It is:
> > http://hg.netbeans.org/main/nb-javac/rev/414b82835861
> >
> > Which maps to:
> > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/langtools/rev/414b82835861
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8039214
> >
> > My understanding is that the code shouldn't compile per the spec.
> >
> > In general, as NetBeans works with a single nb-javac copy, it is not easy
> > to keep bug-to-bug compatibility with various JDK releases. So,
> sometimes,
> > NB produces an error for things that compile on some JDK releases, as it
> > uses a newer (nb-)javac which has some bugs fixed.
> >
> > In this case it might be possible to let the code parse with -source 8 in
> > NB, as the change appears to be relatively simple.
> >
> > In any case - I'd suggest to consider changing the code, as (AFAIK) it
> > won't compile under 9.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Attila Kelemen <
> > attila.keleme...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I did not really made an attempt to find the bug in the sources. I
> would
> > > expect an unguided bisect search to take an unreasonable amount of time
> > > given how much time I need to build NB. So, what I would prefer if
> > someone
> > > who knows which part of NB is responsible to make this kind of error
> > > checking (I fear that it is in nb-javac-api which seems to be external
> to
> > > the repo) and I would debug it and then review the changes after I know
> > > what exactly causes this bug. However, currently I don't even know how
> I
> > > should debug NB as I have found no guide for it.
> > >
> > > 2017-06-10 18:49 GMT+02:00 Emilian Bold <emilian.b...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > My guess is that the bug is nbjavac (i.e. Parser) related and not
> part
> > of
> > > > the Java editor per se
> > > >
> > > > So the question is what changed between 8.1 and current?
> > > >
> > > > Come to think of it, did you try running a hg bisect to see if
> there's
> > a
> > > > single commit that introduced this? (It might be the commit that
> > changes
> > > > the javacimpl JARs, ie nbjavac, and then you bisect that).
> > > >
> > > > --emi
> > > >
> > > > Pe 10 iun. 2017, la 19:29, Attila Kelemen <
> attila.keleme...@gmail.com>
> > a
> > > > scris:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a long standing issue with NetBeans preventing me from
> > upgrading
> > > > > from NB 8.1. I had the issue reported at:
> > > > > https://netbeans.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=268334
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know if the issue was attempted to be fixed? Anyway,
> I'm
> > > > > willing to assist in debugging the issue if someone helps me on how
> > to
> > > > > debug an issue like this in NB (sofar I couldn't even find a
> > reasonable
> > > > way
> > > > > to debug NB: I have tried (guessed) running "ant tryme-debug" but
> > > running
> > > > > this target fails with an error.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Attila Kelemen
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
