On 10/09/2020 10:07 pm, Dmitriy Dumanskiy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:21:28 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
The code in java.base was updated to use String::isEmpty in JDK 12
(JDK-8215281). There was follow-up in JDK 13 to do
the same in the java.desktop module (JDK-8223237). Changing the
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 02:48:15 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> Our local Santuario maintainer says:
>>
>> In general, changes to Apache Santuario should also be made at Apache so we
>> stay in sync.
>
> Hi @doom369, I hope we didn't end up wasting too much of your time with this.
> I wanted to
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:17:58 GMT, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
>> Ok, sorry for the distraction.
>
> Our local Santuario maintainer says:
>
> In general, changes to Apache Santuario should also be made at Apache so we
> stay in sync.
Hi @doom369, I hope we didn't end up wasting too much of your
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 07:15:26 GMT, Dmitriy Dumanskiy
wrote:
>> 1) This is un-necessary churn.
>> 2) I can't even be sure I am finding the ones in my area because there's so
>> much here
>> 3) The ones I can find have no need of whatever performance improvement this
>> might bring.
>> I think
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 23:57:38 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> **isEmpty** is faster + has less byte code + easier to read. Benchmarks
>> could be found
>>
>> [here](https://medium.com/javarevisited/micro-optimizations-in-java-string-equals-22be19fd8416).
>
> 1) This is un-necessary churn.
> 2) I
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 13:57:19 GMT, Dmitriy Dumanskiy
wrote:
> **isEmpty** is faster + has less byte code + easier to read. Benchmarks could
> be found
>
> [here](https://medium.com/javarevisited/micro-optimizations-in-java-string-equals-22be19fd8416).
1) This is un-necessary churn.
2) I
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:04:48 GMT, Dmitriy Dumanskiy
wrote:
> I have in mind dozens of improvements all over the code like this one.
That sounds scary. Broad updates like these cause unnecessary churn in the
codebase, and can make merging and back
porting harder. Changes should be discussed
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:50:39 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> 14 cc'd mailing lists is unworkable. You need to be subscribed to lists to
>> post, but even if you are a reply-all will
>> be delayed due to all of the mails being held up for moderator approval due
>> to:
>> " Too many recipients to
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:53:10 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> @dholmes-ora raises a good point. Hopefully there is a balance point between
>> a dozen different bugs / pull requests
>> each targeting one area and one bug / PR targeting a dozen separate areas. I
>> don't have a good general rule to
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 12:18:51 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> This should be broken up to deal with the files in different functional
>> areas under different bugids and PRs. Otherwise
>> the cross-posting to so many lists is prohibitive. Files in different areas
>> need to be reviewed by
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:21:28 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> The code in java.base was updated to use String::isEmpty in JDK 12
>> (JDK-8215281). There was follow-up in JDK 13 to do
>> the same in the java.desktop module (JDK-8223237). Changing the remaining
>> usages make sense although I see
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:21:28 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> The code in java.base was updated to use String::isEmpty in JDK 12
>> (JDK-8215281). There was follow-up in JDK 13 to do
>> the same in the java.desktop module (JDK-8223237). Changing the remaining
>> usages make sense although I see
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:40:15 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> @kevinrushforth thanks. Done.
>>
>> Similar issues:
>> https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8215014
>> https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8251246
>>
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:47:35 GMT, Dmitriy Dumanskiy
wrote:
>> Before this Enhancement can be formally reviewed, you will need a JBS bug
>> ID. If you are already working with a
>> Committer or Reviewer in the `jdk` project who has agreed to sponsor your
>> change, they can file the
14 matches
Mail list logo
