Re: RFR: 8279185: Support for IsoFields in JapaneseDate/MinguoDate/ThaiBuddhistDate [v3]
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 17:04:25 GMT, Joe Wang wrote: >> Is `IsoBased` is fine with me. "isISOLike" is too vague. > > That matches the javadoc as well, that it "supports ISO based fields". Renamed the new method to `isIsoBased()`. Modified the CSR accordingly. - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683
Re: RFR: 8279185: Support for IsoFields in JapaneseDate/MinguoDate/ThaiBuddhistDate [v3]
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 03:00:45 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> OK, I propose `isIsoBased()` for the name, which I initially thought of. If >> there is no objection, I will modify the spec/impl. > > Is `IsoBased` is fine with me. "isISOLike" is too vague. That matches the javadoc as well, that it "supports ISO based fields". - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683
Re: RFR: 8279185: Support for IsoFields in JapaneseDate/MinguoDate/ThaiBuddhistDate [v3]
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 01:27:39 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/chrono/Chronology.java line 794:
>>
>>> 792: * @since 19
>>> 793: */
>>> 794: default boolean supportsIsoFields() {
>>
>> I'm not a fan of this name, as it is inconsistent with the rest of JSR310
>> API, which uses an `is` prefix for booleans. I suggested `isIsoLike` because
>> the key question is whether the chronology is "like" ISO. I would also be OK
>> with `isBasedOnIso`, `isDerivedFromIso`, `isIsoBased` or something similar.
>> Another risk here is limiting the method to refer only to `IsoFields`. While
>> that is the use case here, it isn't the case that the only fields that might
>> be affected are in `IsoFields`. Third parties may have their own fields
>> that are suitable for use with an ISO-like chronology.
>
> OK, I propose `isIsoBased()` for the name, which I initially thought of. If
> there is no objection, I will modify the spec/impl.
Is `IsoBased` is fine with me. "isISOLike" is too vague.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683
Re: RFR: 8279185: Support for IsoFields in JapaneseDate/MinguoDate/ThaiBuddhistDate [v3]
On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 17:12:31 GMT, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
>> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Addresses review comments
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/chrono/Chronology.java line 794:
>
>> 792: * @since 19
>> 793: */
>> 794: default boolean supportsIsoFields() {
>
> I'm not a fan of this name, as it is inconsistent with the rest of JSR310
> API, which uses an `is` prefix for booleans. I suggested `isIsoLike` because
> the key question is whether the chronology is "like" ISO. I would also be OK
> with `isBasedOnIso`, `isDerivedFromIso`, `isIsoBased` or something similar.
> Another risk here is limiting the method to refer only to `IsoFields`. While
> that is the use case here, it isn't the case that the only fields that might
> be affected are in `IsoFields`. Third parties may have their own fields that
> are suitable for use with an ISO-like chronology.
OK, I propose `isIsoBased()` for the name, which I initially thought of. If
there is no objection, I will modify the spec/impl.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683
Re: RFR: 8279185: Support for IsoFields in JapaneseDate/MinguoDate/ThaiBuddhistDate [v3]
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 23:05:56 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Supporting `IsoFields` temporal fields in chronologies that are similar to
>> ISO chronology. Corresponding CSR has also been drafted.
>
> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Addresses review comments
src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/chrono/Chronology.java line 794:
> 792: * @since 19
> 793: */
> 794: default boolean supportsIsoFields() {
I'm not a fan of this name, as it is inconsistent with the rest of JSR310 API,
which uses an `is` prefix for booleans. I suggested `isIsoLike` because the key
question is whether the chronology is "like" ISO. I would also be OK with
`isBasedOnIso`, `isDerivedFromIso`, `isIsoBased` or something similar. Another
risk here is limiting the method to refer only to `IsoFields`. While that is
the use case here, it isn't the case that the only fields that might be
affected are in `IsoFields`. Third parties may have their own fields that are
suitable for use with an ISO-like chronology.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683
Re: RFR: 8279185: Support for IsoFields in JapaneseDate/MinguoDate/ThaiBuddhistDate [v3]
> Supporting `IsoFields` temporal fields in chronologies that are similar to > ISO chronology. Corresponding CSR has also been drafted. Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Addresses review comments - Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683/files/12c6212a..e0b329d7 Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=7683=02 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=7683=01-02 Stats: 52 lines in 10 files changed: 11 ins; 0 del; 41 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/7683/head:pull/7683 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683
