JDK 12 RFR of JDK-8146726 : Refactor AbstractProcessor to use Set.of and related methods

[Ivan Gerasimov]

Hi Joe!

In two places the expected numbers of elements is used instead of the 
initial capacity of a new HashSet:

new HashSet<>(values.length);

Wouldn't the default initial capacity (i.e. `new HashSet<>()` ) be 
better choice here, as the number of values is likely to be small and 
the HashSet is temporary anyway?

With kind regards,

Ivan


On 11/28/18 6:09 PM, joe darcy wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> Adding Stuart for a collections consult; Stuart, what is the currently 
> recommended idiom to construct a unmodifiable collection with the same 
> elements as a existing collection? In particular, for a set of Strings 
> is something like
>
>     Set.of(stringSet(new String[0]))
>
> preferred over
>
>     Collections.unmodifiableSet(stringSet);
>
> Assume serialization is not a concern.
>
> On 11/27/2018 1:23 PM, Ron Shapiro wrote:
>> Set.of() throws if there are duplicate elements - but arrayToSet() 
>> didn't do so. Is it intended to throw if either of these take 
>> duplicates?
>>
>
> Good catch.
>
> After some pondering, I think it is preferable for AbstractProcessor 
> to not treat duplicates as an error, but to issue a warning in if 
> duplicates are found. Arguably, it would have been reasonable to treat 
> such condition as an error initially when the API was introduced, but 
> adding such a check now could have some unnecessary behavioral 
> compatibility impact. The case to add an erroneous check for options 
> is stronger than for supported annotations because supported 
> annotations have some additional processing if modules are not 
> present. In more detail, with modules to fully specify an annotation 
> type, the module name needs to be used: "mod1/foo.bar" vs 
> "mod2/foo.bar". If such a processor is run when modules are not used, 
> then the names are stripped to "foo.bar" in both cases and that should 
> not be treated as an error.
>
> Revised webrev:
>
>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8146726.3/
>
> Will possibly update based on guidance from Stuart on the collections 
> usage question.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe
>

-- 
With kind regards,
Ivan Gerasimov