Re: RFR JDK-5077522 : Duration.compare incorrect for some values

Thanks again Daniel and Lance! Joe On 6/21/2014 3:32 AM, Lance @ Oracle wrote: Agree this is better and cleaner! Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlingt

Re: RFR JDK-5077522 : Duration.compare incorrect for some values

Agree this is better and cleaner! Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 lance.ander...@oracle.com Sent from my iPad On Jun 21, 2014, at 4:27 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote: > Thanks Joe! > > This is much cle

Re: RFR JDK-5077522 : Duration.compare incorrect for some values

Thanks Joe! This is much cleaner indeed :-) -- daniel On 6/21/14 4:36 AM, huizhe wang wrote: Thanks Daniel, Lance. On 6/20/2014 3:02 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote: Hi Joe, Thanks for the detailed explanation. It really helps reviewing the fix! Glad to know it helps. I thought this part of spec c

Re: RFR JDK-5077522 : Duration.compare incorrect for some values

Thanks Daniel, Lance. On 6/20/2014 3:02 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote: Hi Joe, Thanks for the detailed explanation. It really helps reviewing the fix! Glad to know it helps. I thought this part of spec could be unfamiliar to people. This looks reasonable to me. One minor nit is that you could t

Re: RFR JDK-5077522 : Duration.compare incorrect for some values

Hi Joe, Thanks for the detailed explanation. It really helps reviewing the fix! This looks reasonable to me. One minor nit is that you could turn: 769 BigInteger maxintAsBigInteger = BigInteger.valueOf((long) Integer.MAX_VALUE); into a static final constant in the class. best regard

RFR JDK-5077522 : Duration.compare incorrect for some values

Hi, This is a long time compatibility issue: Duration.compare returns equal for INDETERMINATE relations defined in XML Schema standard (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#duration-order) as listed in the following table: Relation P*1Y* > P*364D*<> P*365D*<> P*366