On 2/9/18, 1:38 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Joe,
Looking good, but a few comments:
AbstractStringBuilder: 111 the coder() method should be private and since there is only a few uses the function could be inlined.
Indeed, the coder() method was added along with the new method. The coder field was referenced directly in all existing uses. I've removed the coder() method, and instead refer to the coder field directly.
StringBuffer:192: extra leading space before "}"
Fixed. Thanks, Joe
Thanks, Roger
On 2/8/2018 7:47 PM, Joe Wang wrote:
Hi all,
The CSR for the enhancement is now approved. Thanks Joe!
The webrev has been updated accordingly. Please let me know if you have any further comment on the implementation. JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137326 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk11/8137326/webrev/
Thanks, Joe
On 2/2/2018 12:46 PM, Joe Wang wrote:
Thanks Jason. Will update that accordingly.
Best, Joe
On 2/2/2018 11:22 AM, Jason Mehrens wrote:
Joe,
The identity check in CS.compare makes sense. However, it won't be null hostile if we call CS.compare(null, null) and that doesn't seem right. Usually when writing comparator classes I end up with: === if (Objects.requireNonNull(o1) == Objects.requireNonNull(o2)) { return 0; } ===
Jason ________________________________________ From: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev-bounces@openjdk.java.net> on behalf of Joe Wang <huizhe.wang@oracle.com> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 1:01 PM To: core-libs-dev Subject: Re: RFR (JDK11) 8137326: Methods for comparing CharSequence, StringBuilder, and StringBuffer
Hi,
Thanks all for comments and suggestions. I've updated the webrev. Please review.
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137326 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk11/8137326/webrev/
Thanks, Joe
On 1/31/2018 9:31 PM, Joe Wang wrote:
Hi Tagir,
Thanks for the comment. I will consider adding that to the javadoc emphasizing that the comparison is performed from 0 to length() - 1 of the two sequences.
Best, Joe
On 1/29/18, 8:07 PM, Tagir Valeev wrote:
Hello!
An AbstractStringBuilder#compareTo implementation is wrong. You cannot simply compare the whole byte array. Here's the test-case:
public class Test { public static void main(String[] args) { StringBuilder sb1 = new StringBuilder("test1"); StringBuilder sb2 = new StringBuilder("test2"); sb1.setLength(4); sb2.setLength(4); System.out.println(sb1.compareTo(sb2)); System.out.println(sb1.toString().compareTo(sb2.toString())); } }
We truncated the stringbuilders making their content equal, so sb1.toString().compareTo(sb2.toString()) is 0, but compareTo compares the original content (before the truncation) as truncation, of course, does not zero the truncated bytes, neither does it reallocate the array (unless explicitly asked via trimToSize).
With best regards, Tagir Valeev.
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Joe Wang<huizhe.wang@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Adding methods for comparing CharSequence, StringBuilder, and > StringBuffer. > > The Comparable implementations for StringBuilder/Buffer are similar > to that > of String, allowing comparison operations between two > StringBuilders/Buffers, e.g. > aStringBuilder.compareTo(anotherStringBuilder). > For CharSequence however, refer to the comments in JIRA, a static > method > 'compare' is added instead of implementing the Comparable > interface. > This > 'compare' method may take CharSequence implementations such as > String, > StringBuilder and StringBuffer, making it possible to perform > comparison > among them. The previous example for example is equivalent to > CharSequence.compare(aStringBuilder, anotherStringBuilder). > > Tests for java.base have been independent from each other. The new > tests are > therefore created to have no dependency on each other or sharing > any > code. > > JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137326 > webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk11/8137326/webrev/ > > Thanks, > Joe