On 7 October 2015 at 01:13, Stuart Marks wrote:
> My question is, is this enough of a problem that we should allow nulls in
> these collections? I would prefer not to do this, but if there is evidence
> that this would be a mistake, I'd like to hear it.
>
> And if
xisting code which
> would need to be examined for behavioral changes due to possibly throwing an
> exception.
> So perhaps the nonNullorElse name would be more accurate.
>
> Thanks, Roger
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2015 10:00 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>> Guava use
Moving to core-libs:
On 3 October 2015 at 03:20, Stuart Marks wrote:
> An interesting exercise would be to add the @Deprecated annotation to the
> Boolean constructor and build the JDK and see how many warnings result. That
> might be a quick way to find the code that
Guava uses firstNonNull(a, b). It ensures that the result is never
null, by checking that b is not null.
I think the semantics of Guava's method is correct. I tend to think
the method name isn't bad either.
Calling it nonNull(Object,Object) clashes with the existing
nonNull(Object) method. Those
In my view, the proposal is pretty good. I too use Guava's immutable
classes as types, because of the extra value obtained. But that does
not mean these methods should not be in the JDK. (Not every project
uses Guava).
I'd argue for two changes to the JEP.
Map.fromEntries() -> Map.ofEntries()
In
Good to see this happen.
I agree a test would be good to demonstrate edge cases.
1)
I think the code for floorMod(long x, int y); cannot actually
overflow. As such, the result could just be cast without the if and
throw.
2)
My preferred algorithm for floorMod is:
return ((a % b) + b) % b;
as
Just to note that an ideal location for this would be on a new class,
one that has been discussed before, an "argument checker class".
See Guava Preconditions:
https://github.com/google/guava/blob/master/guava/src/com/google/common/base/Preconditions.java
See Commons Lang Validate:
On 29 September 2015 at 16:02, Brian Burkhalter
wrote:
> 2)
> My preferred algorithm for floorMod is:
>
> return ((a % b) + b) % b;
>
> as it contains no Java-side branches, although tests would be needed
> to prove performance.
>
> This also allows an algorithm for
On 29 September 2015 at 21:01, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> The concern i have is once Preconditions is let loose the scope expands with
> proposals for “just one more method” (there is even the opportunity to bike
> shed over the names checkNotNull or requiresNotNull etc. etc.)
On 25 September 2015 at 11:58, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Please review this change to add a method Optional.or that allows one to
> better compose optionals:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8080418-optional-or/webrev/
New method seems fine.
> Separately
+1
Stephen
On 24 September 2015 at 14:23, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Please review two java.time editorial changes:
> - 8129744: a trivial editorial change in java.time.Month javadoc.
> - 8129556: TemporalAdjusters dayOfWeekInMonth wrongly says "in the same
> month"
>
>
While I think I understand the need for the lambda/exception interface
(backwards compatibility) it is definitely weird as a method
signature.
It would seem very worthwhile to add overloaded versions of each of
these methods that do not have the OutOfBoundsToException in the
argument list.
On 21 September 2015 at 15:28, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> It would seem very worthwhile to add overloaded versions of each of
>> these methods that do not have the OutOfBoundsToException in the
>> argument list. Instead, these overloads would throw a "standard"
>> exception.
>
e. (Early
> Nov)
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> On 9/8/2015 2:53 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>> Anyone like to take this on please?
>> Stephen
>> On 28 Aug 2015 00:07, "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Extern
Anyone like to take this on please?
Stephen
On 28 Aug 2015 00:07, "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote:
> External question sites indicate that users have difficulty converting
> between java.util.Date and LocalDate, and also between Instant and
> Local
External question sites indicate that users have difficulty converting
between java.util.Date and LocalDate, and also between Instant and
LocalDate/LocalTime. This user difficulty can be resolved with some
additional methods.
Currently, the following methods exist:
Fine by me.
Stephen
On 6 Aug 2015 19:15, Chris Hegarty chris.hega...@oracle.com wrote:
On 6 Aug 2015, at 19:07, Roger Riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi,
Please review the update to include the additional case and fix.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-overflow-8133022/
Seems like a useful addition to me.
Stephen
On 28 July 2015 at 09:28, Chris Hegarty chris.hega...@oracle.com wrote:
I find this kinda cute. Seems like a reasonable addition to me.
-Chris.
On 27 Jul 2015, at 15:48, Roger Riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
On most operating systems,
Fine by me
Stephen
On 28 May 2015 at 21:14, Roger Riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
Please review 3 editorial issues in the java.time package:
Issues:
8075678 https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8075678: java.time
javadoc error in DateTimeFormatter::parsedLeapSecond
8075676
On 6 May 2015 at 14:53, Paul Sandoz paul.san...@oracle.com wrote:
In some respects i wonder if the default methods on the functional
interfaces are an attractive nuisance.
Meaning, if .negate(Predicate) were a static method on the Predicate class
instead of a default method, then
I am also happy with this change.
Stephen
On 6 May 2015 at 15:43, Roger Riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the analysis and followup.
Yes, I think thesimple check as you propose is the desired clarification.
I agree that the change should not affect any existing code
be much simpler if the truncation is performed:
return Instant.of(epochSecond);
Regards, Peter
On 4/29/2015 5:33 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 04/27/2015 06:51 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
One additional change is needed. The compareTo() method can rely on
the new epochSecond field as well
, but perhaps could be tackled here. You need an Oracle
sponsor to tell you ;-)
Stephen
On 29 April 2015 at 10:33, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/27/2015 06:51 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
One additional change is needed. The compareTo() method can rely on
the new epochSecond
On 27 April 2015 at 16:23, Paul Sandoz paul.san...@oracle.com wrote:
One issue is there are zillions of possible more specific convenience
operations we could add. Everyone has their own favourite. Some static
methods were recently added to Stream and Optional in preference to such
.
In general my preference is to keep the stream operation methods as general
as possible.
Paul.
On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
This is a request for an additional method on java.util.stream.Stream.
Having written quite a bit of code in Java 8 now
One additional change is needed. The compareTo() method can rely on
the new epochSecond field as well.
Otherwise good!
Stephen
On 27 April 2015 at 17:24, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi again,
Here's another optimization to be reviewed that has been discussed a while
ago (just
Fine by me.
Stephen
On 27 April 2015 at 19:50, Roger Riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
Please review a timing relaxation so tests do not fail on very slow hardware
with more expensive runtime options. (-Xcomp)
The change will also be backported to jdk 8.
Issue:
8078369: [testbug]
TzdbZoneRulesProvider parses the byte[] of TZ data on demand when a
ZoneId is first requested. So, the ZoneOffsetTransition will not be
created unless a ZoneId is during startup.
Stephen
On 27 April 2015 at 22:58, Roger Riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Peter,
Caching the epochSecond
This seems like a good enhancement.
Stephen
On 27 April 2015 at 16:26, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Please review the following improvement that caches default ZoneId object
and makes the frequently executed ZoneId.systemDefault() method faster:
,
Just to clarify, by non-offset based ZoneRules do you mean it has a fixed
offset
meaning no transitions; aka ZoneRules.isFixedOffset() = true?
Thanks, Roger
On 4/24/2015 5:32 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
The code in the webrev changes the behaviour of java.time, so cannot go
I think the fix looks good. I haven't had time to look through the
tests in detail (as there are lots)
Stephen
On 4 March 2015 at 19:48, Xueming Shen xueming.s...@oracle.com wrote:
Stephen and Roger,
This is the DTF.appendZoneOrOffsetId() issues we discussed last year.
Somehow the
ball was
On 1 March 2015 at 23:37, Remi Forax fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
You only maintain one module which depend on the latest version.
When you ship the module let say as a jar, you also ship the way to
downgrade it as an executable code.
At install time, when all the modules are known, before trying
Looks good to me.
thanks
Stephen
On 27 February 2015 at 16:25, Daniel Fuchs daniel.fu...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi,
Please find below a patch for:
8074032: Instant.ofEpochMilli(millis).toEpochMilli() can
throw arithmetic overflow in toEpochMilli()
On 27 February 2015 at 10:55, Daniel Fuchs daniel.fu...@oracle.com wrote:
I don't think I saw an issue raised for caching the clock in ZoneId.
That seems like a good plan to me (ZoneId instances are controlled
singletons, so there is no big memory issue there)
I'd been intending to log that.
On 26 February 2015 at 23:29, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another variant that doesn't use a back link to base TimeZone:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/ZoneId.systemDefault/webrev.03/
Yes, thats easier to follow. I think I'd be happy with that approach.
I
())
Regards, Peter
On 02/23/2015 12:50 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Having recently spent time on performance myself, I know that there
are a number of things in the java.time package that need some work.
Improving ZoneId.systemDefault() is definitely an improvement I
welcome. The change
it (like Fantom).
On 25 February 2015 at 16:27, Brian Goetz brian.go...@oracle.com wrote:
On 2/12/2015 5:59 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I would expect IDEs to have some considerable work to do.
Agree on the work part, but I doubt it is considerable.
In Eclipse, there is a 1:1 mapping between
On 23 February 2015 at 22:27, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
What about the following idea:
- create a (maybe still package-private) instance method
ZoneId.getSystemClock() and cache the per-ZoneId Clock instance inside the
ZoneId.
- Clock.system(ZoneId) static method is then
Thanks for the change. This reviewer is happy.
Stephen
On 24 February 2015 at 10:59, Daniel Fuchs daniel.fu...@oracle.com wrote:
On 23/02/15 21:40, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
The rest of the java.time code tends to put the data provider method
before the test, and mostly uses a naming
Having recently spent time on performance myself, I know that there
are a number of things in the java.time package that need some work.
Improving ZoneId.systemDefault() is definitely an improvement I
welcome. The change is along the lines of that I would have made,
involving a secret location to
The rest of the java.time code tends to put the data provider method
before the test, and mostly uses a naming convention of
data_systemClocks. Neither of which are particularly important
things.
Stephen
On 23 February 2015 at 20:02, Daniel Fuchs daniel.fu...@oracle.com wrote:
On 23/02/15
FWIW, I think UOE is clearly the right exception for a method that is
unsupported. An IOExeption is very much associated with the actual IO
system.
Stephen
On 20 February 2015 at 21:06, Martin Buchholz marti...@google.com wrote:
I totally disagree about recoverable condition. Instead of
A good improvement and ready to go from my perspective,
thanks
Stephen
On 19 February 2015 at 15:19, Daniel Fuchs daniel.fu...@oracle.com wrote:
On 18/02/15 12:11, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
In LogRecord, the Javadoc of getInstant():
Get event time.
could be
Gets the instant that the event
In LogRecord, the Javadoc of getInstant():
Get event time.
could be
Gets the instant that the event ocurred.
In LogRecord, the Javadoc of setInstant():
Set event time.
could be
Sets the instant that the event ocurred.
(matching change to @param)
I'd prefer to see the other methods in the class
Elements of the date/time handling here don't really work.
Logging is essentially a UTC only problem, using a time-zone is slow and
unecessary. This indicates that all uses of ZonedDateTime should be
replaced with either Instant or an OffsetDateTime using ZoneOffset.UTC.
Any string format should
Interesting direction.
Reading carefully, the goal is actually very limited in scope, by
preventing any public API changes. It doesn't help adoption of JSR-310
for example, but will be useful for Unsafe, which is clearly a
motivating factor.
I would expect IDEs to have some considerable work to
On 9 February 2015 at 23:44, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote:
ProcessHandle.Info provides a startTime and totalTime. But it seems odd and
inconsistent that startTime is an Instant, yet totalTime is a raw long as
opposed to the arguably more consistent Duration. Is there a reason
if there is no suitable guess
Stephen
On 4 February 2015 at 16:05, Roger Riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 2/4/15 10:43 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
The java.time code generally takes a lenient approach to methods that
return a boolean. For example, they tend to accept null inputs
an exception or reinforce the
value is
specified only within the range of the chronology.
How about:
liexcept if the year is out of range the chronology should return a best
effort guess, or false if there is no suitable guess
Roger
On 2/4/2015 11:18 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
The spec
-8067800/
Roger
On 2/4/2015 3:42 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I think this might be clearer:
* Checks if the specified year is a leap year.
* p
* A leap-year is a year of a longer length than normal.
* The exact meaning is determined by the chronology according to the
following
in Chronology.isLeapYear about not checking the range is too
broad
and should be qualified by the Chronology.
Perhaps the proposed change should include a caveat in that method.
Roger
On 2/3/15 8:05 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
-1
As I indicated on JIRA, I don't believe
Can't say I've used isPresent() much, as map()/flatMap()/orElse() take
care of most use cases.
What is an issue is that the primitive optional classes do not have
ofNullable(), filter(), map() or flatMap(). It seems odd to be adding
an additional new method to the primitive optional classes
-1
As I indicated on JIRA, I don't believe that this change meets the
spec or intent of the definition on Chronology. That is specified to
not throw any exceptions and to handle all years, valid or not.
I don't foresee any significant issue where a year is not validated by
this method. Years out
On 28 January 2015 at 17:09, Paul Sandoz paul.san...@oracle.com wrote:
I guess having a method like this makes it easier for people to deal with
their possibly-null-producing code in a new streams world. Such
null-producing code already exists. I guess you could say that providing
this
On 15 January 2015 at 13:01, Peter Firmstone
peter.firmst...@zeus.net.au wrote:
A third option that hasn't yet been considered would be to investigate an
api that various already existing frameworks can implement providers for, so
they no longer need to find creative ways to construct instances
On 12 January 2015 at 11:36, Daniel Fuchs daniel.fu...@oracle.com wrote:
In java.time.Instant, a readObject() has been added. However, I don't
believe this will ever be called because Instant has a writeReplace()
method and so is not deserialized. (There may be some security related
evil
On 12 January 2015 at 12:00, Daniel Fuchs daniel.fu...@oracle.com wrote:
I'm not a big fan of the current name either.
I would gladly rename it. I did think of
windows_to_java_time_micros, but it actually returns tenth of
micros - so it would be lying...
Is there a good name for 'tenth of
On 12 January 2015 at 11:37, Chris Hegarty chris.hega...@oracle.com wrote:
For clarity, I would like to describe how things currently work.
1) Allocate a new instance of the deserialized type.
2) Call the first non-Serializable types no-arg constructor
( may be j.l.Object ).
3) For
Well that is a nice surprise ;-) And I think the implementation via an
adjustment is very sensible.
In java.time.Instant, a readObject() has been added. However, I don't
believe this will ever be called because Instant has a writeReplace()
method and so is not deserialized. (There may be some
On 6 January 2015 at 07:27, Peter Levart peter.lev...@gmail.com wrote:
readObject() can be used on both ends of the spectrum or anywhere
in-between. It can be used for explicit deserialization or just for
validation of default deserialized state. Would separate validation method
give us
On 6 January 2015 at 10:25, Chris Hegarty chris.hega...@oracle.com wrote:
On 6 Jan 2015, at 08:31, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
I've thought on a number of occasions that what I wanted from
serializable was a merger of readObject and readResolve
private Object
On 6 January 2015 at 11:46, Chris Hegarty chris.hega...@oracle.com wrote:
With shallow/no hierarchies, and others, the serialization proxy pattern
works quite well. The overhead of course being the creation of the proxy
itself, but this is typically a minimal container with just the state
Just to note that an IndexOutOfBoundsException is mentioned in the
text (line 274, 350) but there is no matching @throws clause. The
IndexOutOfBoundsException could have a message added.
In general, I would expect an offset/length overload for most methods
that take an array, so this seems like a
I've checked the bug database [1], JEPs list [2] and Google but this
JEP appears to have disappeared. Can this be confirmed?
Stephen
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=issuetype%20%3D%20JEP
[2] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/0
On 13 February 2014 at 11:05, Florian Weimer
Just to note that there is some overlap between improving
serialization and the meta-model for Java (Beans v2.0) work I'm
looking at [1][2]. The key tool that a meta-model provides is to
enable class authors to select which pieces of their state form the
published properties. In most cases, the
I'm happy with this updated patch.
Stephen
On 24 March 2014 18:24, Xueming Shen xueming.s...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Stephen,
The webrev has been updated accordingly.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8033662/webrev/
Thanks!
-Sherman
On 03/24/2014 08:59 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote
This really needs to make 8u20 IMO, so I need to get it into jdk9 first
thanks
Stephen
On 12 March 2014 12:29, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033662
and the duplicate:
https
then consider rechecking all of java.time for
non-normative stuff to go in a separate commit.
Stephen
On 19 March 2014 10:53, Alan Bateman alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote:
On 12/03/2014 10:52, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK
ping
On 12 March 2014 10:48, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035099
The implementation for LocalTime with(MILLI_OF_DAY, n) and LocalTime
with(MICRO_OF_DAY, n) fails to match the specification
On 3/12/2014 6:45 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036818
The method DateTimeFormatter withResolverFields() is supposed to
accept null. This is to allow a coy of the formatter to be returned
reset to the original
ping
On 12 March 2014 12:29, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033662
and the duplicate:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033659
The javadoc of the method
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036818
The method DateTimeFormatter withResolverFields() is supposed to
accept null. This is to allow a coy of the formatter to be returned
reset to the original state of having no resolver fields. The docs
say:
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035099
The implementation for LocalTime with(MILLI_OF_DAY, n) and LocalTime
with(MICRO_OF_DAY, n) fails to match the specification.
LocalTime base = LocalTime.of(12, 30, 40, 987654321);
LocalTime result =
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8036785
During development, ChronoLocalDate had a generic type parameter. It
was removed during the development of JSR-310. The Javadoc was not
updated to reflect the removal.
The necessary change is to text that
This is a request for review of this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033662
and the duplicate:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033659
The javadoc of the method java.time.format.DateTimeFormatter::withZone says:
If no zone has been parsed, then this override zone will be
not be suitable for 8u. Though I'm not
sure how these tests feed from the OpenJDK repo into the actual TCK.
-Chris.
On 12/03/14 13:54, roger riggs wrote:
Looks fine, (not a reviewer).
I can sponsor the fix when reviewed.
Thanks, Roger
On 3/12/2014 6:45 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote
On 26 February 2014 20:54, Martin Buchholz marti...@google.com wrote:
It does seem that being able to tell whether a java object monitor is
currently locked is useful for debugging and monitoring - there should be a
way to do that.
Perhaps it would be useful to be able to expose a java object
On 21 February 2014 08:14, David Holmes david.hol...@oracle.com wrote:
Would it be reasonable to add the following methods:
- isNestedClass()
This would be !isTopLevelClass() but otherwise
isAnonymousClass() || isLocalClass() || isMemberClass()
- isInnerClass()
isAnonymousClass() ||
you are looking for.
On Feb 21, 2014, at 2:27 AM, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
On 21 February 2014 08:14, David Holmes david.hol...@oracle.com wrote:
Would it be reasonable to add the following methods:
- isNestedClass()
This would be !isTopLevelClass() but otherwise
In JDK 5, three methods were added to java.lang.Class [1]
- isAnonymousClass()
- isLocalClass()
- isMemberClass()
Unfortunately, these do not cover the complete range of possible types of class.
Would it be reasonable to add the following methods:
- isNestedClass()
- isInnerClass()
-
A set of minor wording fixes in Javadoc:
https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/8984256
Comments welcome.
Stephen
On 19 February 2014 11:39, Alan Bateman alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote:
On 19/02/2014 11:08, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Stephen,
This could be construed as a spec-change, even if a typo :(
- * which are too large to fit in an {@code int} and throw a {@code
DateTimeException}.
+ * which are too
Patch updated:
https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/8984256
with differences:
https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/8984256/revisions
thanks for the spots,
Stephen
On 19 February 2014 11:58, Ivan Gerasimov ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Stephen!
May I ask you to add some more typo fixes to
+1 by me
Stephen
On 3 February 2014 22:43, roger riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
Please review this group of java.time updates:
8032749 https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8032749: Typo in
java.time.Clock
8032888 https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8032888: Error message
Looks fine AFAICT
Stephen
On 17 Dec 2013 09:23, roger riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Sherman,
Thanks for the comments, corrected and updated the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-time-serialization/
On 12/16/2013 1:00 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
On 12/16/2013 09:02
Looks good to me
Stephen
On 17 Dec 2013 06:48, roger riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
Please review this change to explicitly document the behavior of
equals and hashCode for java.time.chrono concrete types.
The behavior is not changed.
(They had been documented but the javadoc was not
See https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029676
Stephen
On 26 November 2013 13:20, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
I took a quick look, but jumped back in horror at the start of the
Javadoc for the new methods in Map. A Javadoc description should start
with the positive
Pretty much looks good.
However, I notice that the equals, hashCode and toString methods of
the 4 calendar specific date classes are inherited rather than
written. Without additional spec, I'm not sure that they can claim to
be value types. Adding the 12 Javadocs should be relatively easy.
On 2 December 2013 19:47, Xueming Shen xueming.s...@oracle.com wrote:
That said, it might be desired to add the support of the JSR310 date/time
for the DateFormat, but it will not make jdk8.
FWIW, I think this should have been fixed in jdk 8.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8016743
On 26 November 2013 17:35, Martin Buchholz marti...@google.com wrote:
I haven't looked in depth, but I agree with Stephen's analysis. This API
and its javadoc needs work.
E.g. It's not clear that the purpose of Map.compute is to *update* the
mapping for key in the map.
I actually felt that
I took a quick look, but jumped back in horror at the start of the
Javadoc for the new methods in Map. A Javadoc description should start
with the positive, not the negative. I had to read the code to figure
out what they are supposed to do. Here are the four poor Javadocs and
some proposed
See the new thread for the general Javadoc issues. I'll focus on null here.
Given a map {Key - null} I find the notion that putIfAbsent() or
computeIfAbsent() ignore the existing mapping just plain wrong. While
I can rationalise it (just) it is a horrible reworking of the meaning
of absent.
On 15 November 2013 03:21, Joseph Darcy joe.da...@oracle.com wrote:
Catching up on email, the specification of java.lang.Class does not
explicitly promise that its notion of equality must be identity for all
time. Therefore, while not required for today's implementations, I would
prefer that
On 23 October 2013 17:33, Alan Bateman alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote:
I might have been tempted to conserve on classes and code duplication to
share a serialization proxy between the classes and maybe even shorten the
name.
But it is hard to argue with the simplicity and directness of this
Fine by me (not an official reviewer)
Stephen
On 22 October 2013 15:34, roger riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi,
Please review to address issues in the serialization source files [1]
- The OffsetTime and OffsetDateTime classes have inconsistent
serialization.
- Order of modifiers
the webrev for
it
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8026842/webrev/
Thanks!
-Sherman
On 10/17/13 3:16 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 17 October 2013 22:14, Xueming Shen xueming.s...@oracle.com wrote:
On 10/17/2013 02:01 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I'm happy with the contents
/~sherman/8025971_8026197/webrev
thanks!
-Sherman
On 10/16/2013 01:09 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 15 October 2013 20:35, Xueming Shenxueming.s...@oracle.com wrote:
Please help codereview the changes for
8025971: Remove Time-Zone IDs HST/EST/MST
The method ZoneId.systemDefault() now
On 17 October 2013 22:14, Xueming Shen xueming.s...@oracle.com wrote:
On 10/17/2013 02:01 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I'm happy with the contents of this webrev.
As pointed out previously, it doesn't address the specific issue in
8025971
I will file a separate issue to address the issue
On 15 October 2013 20:35, Xueming Shen xueming.s...@oracle.com wrote:
Please help codereview the changes for
8025971: Remove Time-Zone IDs HST/EST/MST
The method ZoneId.systemDefault() now does not match its specification:
/**
* Gets the system default time-zone.
* p
* This queries {@link
Fine by me (not a formal reviewer)
Stephen
On 15 October 2013 17:03, roger riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi,
Spot fix for a date time parsing case witha reduced value field when the
chronology
is parsed after the reduced value field. The fix is to add a callback when
the
chronology
301 - 400 of 483 matches
Mail list logo