1. Javadoc - Yeah, I didn't know what was the right thing to do in regards to the javadoc. It wasn't 100% copy and paste, but the class-level and some of the methods were pulled. My thought was that if we're considering the Javadoc as the specification for the interface, then it was fair game. I know this was discussed a bit earlier on the list, but I don't recall any real resolution. I'll checkout the code an insert original comments. Let me know if there are any guidelines I should follow.
2. String.intern() - Cool, sounds good. 3. Serialization - I did this for two reasons: one, this has been my personal practice for writing serialization code, as I prefer to have more control over serialization and to have it be more explicit (much of this comes out of suggestions in Effective Java); two, when I read the 'Serialized Form' in the Javadoc for StringBuilder [1] and compared that against StringBuffer [2], this seemed liked the contract. The StringBuffer doc has both readObject/writeObject AND serialized fields, whereas the StringBuilder doc only has readObject/writeObject information. Maybe my understanding of the Javadoc tools is off, but I assumed that since there weren't any fields there, they were transient. An interesting side note: The "Serialized Form" documentation gives away an implementation detail of StringBuffer and StringBuilder, in that they both extend from an AbstractStringBuilder. This might be an interesting approach to consolidate those code paths. Related Question: All of the exceptions that are thrown don't use any messages. Can and should we use the "com.ibm.oti.util.Msg" class for retrieving some localized messages for those exceptions? I personally find it helpful for exceptions, like NPEs, etc, to have some indication of the real issue. Use of that Msg class may not be appropriate in all cases, I guess, as you wouldn't want to introduce some runtime circular execution dependency. [1] http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/serialized-form.html#java.lang.Strin gBuilder [2] http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/serialized-form.html#java.lang.Strin gBuffer -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:09 PM To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [jira] Resolved: (HARMONY-103) java.lang.StringBuilder Implementation for LUNI Nathan, First, let me say a big thank you for the code and tests you submitted. I've had a chance to read through it and (beyond the comments below) it looks good. I've committed a modified version of your patch to SVN. However, ;-) 1. I've removed the javadoc comments as these appear to be direct copies of the Sun documentation. We cannot copy Sun's property. For now the comments have been replaced with TODO tags. 2. I've removed the .intern() from the string literals, since these will be interned by the VM anyway. 3. Why have you got transient char[] and int fields, and then serialize them (as int, char[])? Wouldn't it be easier to reorder the fields and remove the readObject/writeObject methods? Thanks again for your work, Tim Tim Ellison (JIRA) wrote: > [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-103?page=all ] > > Tim Ellison resolved HARMONY-103: > --------------------------------- > > Resolution: Fixed > > Nathan, > > Thanks for the patch, it has been applied (minus javadoc) at repo revision 379882. > > Please check that it has been applied as you expected. > > >> java.lang.StringBuilder Implementation for LUNI >> ----------------------------------------------- >> >> Key: HARMONY-103 >> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-103 >> Project: Harmony >> Type: New Feature >> Components: Classlib >> Reporter: Nathan Beyer >> Assignee: Tim Ellison >> Attachments: StringBuilder.java, StringBuilderTest.java >> >> This bug is for submitting an implementation of the java.lang.StringBuilder to the LUNI module of classlib. The implementation and class definition is based on the specification at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/StringBuilder.html. >> The implementation is not complete, there are a few method that are either incomplete or not implemented. All of these are related to the Unicode Code Point support, as defined by Java 5. As for the rest of the implementation, there are probably a number of optimization points, but the focus was to complete the functionality and make it compatible with various Java 5 runtimes. >> Additionally, I had a problem with compiling this class in Eclipse 3.1.2. When I set the compiler to Java 1.4 compliance level, the methods which implement the Appendable interface cause compilation errors. When I set the compiler to Java 5.0 compliance with Java 1.4 .class file compatability and Java 1.4 source compatibility, the class compiled fine. I'm not sure if this is quirk of the JDT compiler or what, but I'm going to do some investigation and testing to see if I can isolate it. > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
